Sacred Sites: Opportunity for Improving Biocultural
Conservation and Governance in Ysyk-Köl Biosphere
Reserve, Kyrgyz Republic
by
Aibek Samakov
A Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of Graduate Studies of
The University of Manitoba
In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements of the Degree of MASTER OF NATURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT
Natural Resources Institute
Clayton H. Riddell Faculty of Environment, Earth, and Resources
University of Manitoba
Winnipeg, Manitoba R3T 2M6
August 21, 2015
Copyright © 2015 by Aibek Samakov
i
THE UNIVERSITY OF MANITOBA
FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES
*****
COPYRIGHT PERMISSION
Sacred Sites:
an Opportunity for Improving Biocultural Conservation
and Governance in Ysyk-Köl Biosphere Reserve,
Kyrgyz Republic
by
Aibek Samakov
A Thesis submitted to the Faculty of Graduate Studies of The University of
Manitoba in partial fulfillment of the requirement of the degree
Of Master of Natural Resources Management (M.N.R.M)
© 2015 by Aibek Samakov
Permission has been granted to the Library of the University of Manitoba to lend or sell
copies of this thesis, to the National Library of Canada to microfilm this thesis and to lend
or sell copies of the film, and to University Microfilms Inc. to publish an abstract of this
thesis/practicum.
This reproduction or copy of this thesis has been made available by authority of the
copyright owner solely for the purpose of private study and research, and may only be
reproduced and copied as permitted by copyright laws or with express written authorization
from the copyright owner.
ii
ABSTRACT
Sacred sites in Ysyk-Köl area of Kyrgyzstan represent areas of land and bodies of water
which are spiritually and culturally meaningful for local people. The present study mapped
about 130 sacred sites, which are conserved-through-use by local communities and
represent traditional model of conservation. The entire territory of Ysyk-Köl region is a
formal protected area as a UNESCO Biosphere Reserve. Thus, sacred sites, as traditional
model of community conserved area, are embedded in the formal government-run
Biosphere Reserve. The study scrutinizes how these two models of conservation (sacred
sites and the Biosphere Reserve) co-exist in the same territory and interact with each other.
Results indicate that these two models are parallel. However, recognition of sacred sites can
improve formal conservation by: a) providing a complementary culture-based set of
incentives for conservation, b) fostering a biocultural approach, and c) serving as a
communication hub for YKBR managers and local communities.
iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I thank my supervisor Dr. Fikret Berkes and my committee members – Dr. Michael
Campbell, Dr. Derek Armitage and Dr. Ian Mauro for their priceless advice and wise
guidance in writing the thesis. I also thank Dr. Gulnara Aitpaeva and my colleagues from
Aigine Cultural Research Center for all their support during the field research in
Kyrgyzstan.
I am grateful to the Community Conservation Research Network (CCRN) and the Center
for Community-based Resource Management (Natural Resources Institute, University of
Manitoba) for funding this research and generously supporting me throughout my graduate
program.
I thank my parents and family for supporting my academic endeavors. Special thanks to my
honorary grandparents – Dawn and Chuck McCaghy as well as to Shannon for proof-
reading my thesis and fixing numerous grammar errors.
And last but not least, I express my gratitude to all informants who participated in the study
and thank all visible and invisible forces for making this research happen. I do hope that the
findings and thoughts reflected in the thesis will help in relinking society and nature and
contribute to the well-being of local communities in Kyrgyzstan and worldwide.
iv
CONTENTS
ABSTRACT .................................................................................................................................... ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ............................................................................................................ iii
CONTENTS................................................................................................................................... iv
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................. 1
1.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Research goal and objectives ........................................................................................ 4
1.3 Research methods ......................................................................................................... 4
1.4 Study area...................................................................................................................... 6
1.5 Theory ........................................................................................................................... 9
1.6 Significance of the proposed research ........................................................................ 10
1.7 Structure of the thesis.................................................................................................. 11
CHAPTER 2. METHODOLOGY AND RESEARCH DESIGN ............................................. 13
2.1 Philosophical worldview ............................................................................................. 13
2.2 Research design .......................................................................................................... 14
2.3 Research strategy ........................................................................................................ 16
2.4 Research methods ....................................................................................................... 19
2.4.1 Documents analysis ............................................................................................. 21
2.4.2 Participant observation......................................................................................... 23
2.4.3 Semi‐structured interviews and key informant interviews .................................. 24
2.4.4 Focus group discussions ...................................................................................... 27
2.5. Data analysis, validity and verification ...................................................................... 28
CHAPTER 3. LITERATURE REVIEW ................................................................................... 31
3.1 Sacred Sites and Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK) ...................................... 31
3.2 Indigenous and Community Conserved Areas (ICCAs) ............................................. 33
3.3 Protected Area (PA) Governance ................................................................................ 36
3.4 UNESCO Biosphere Reserves .................................................................................... 39
CHAPTER 4. SACRED SITES: COMMUNITY CONSERVED AREAS IN THE
YSYK-KÖL BIOSPHERE RESERVE ...................................................................................... 47
4.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................. 47
4.2 Results: What kind of sacred sites are there in the Ysyk-Köl Biosphere Reserve? .... 48
v
4.3 Discussion: What makes sacred sites be conserved by local communities? .............. 66
4.4 Conclusion .................................................................................................................. 72
CHAPTER 5. GOVERNANCE AND BIOCULTURAL DIVERSITY
CONSERVATION IN THE YSYK-KÖL BIOSPHERE RESERVE ..................................... 73
5.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................. 73
5.2 Results: Governance and biocultural conservation in the YKBR ............................... 75
5.3 Discussion: Characteristics of governance and conservation in the YKBR ............... 89
5.5 Conclusion ................................................................................................................ 101
CHAPTER 6. SACRED SITES AS A TOOL FOR IMPROVING CONSERVATION
IN YSYK-KÖL BIOSPHERE RESERVE .............................................................................. 103
6.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................... 103
6.2 Two models of conservation: ways of reinforcing conservation in the region ......... 106
6.3 Limitations on employing sacred sites in formal conservation ................................ 115
6.4 Protection of sacred sites through formal law........................................................... 122
CHAPTER 7. CONCLUSION .................................................................................................. 124
REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................... 131
APPENDIX 1: Kyrgyzstan’s legislative framework pertaining to biocultural
conservation ................................................................................................................................ 141
APPENDIX 2. Resolution of sacred site guardians accepted at the National Meeting of
Sacred Site Guardians, October 27, 2014, Bishkek ................................................................ 145
APPENDIX 3 Informed Consent Form ................................................................................... 148
vi
List of Tables
Table 1.1 General characteristics of the YKBR…………………………………………..7
Table 1.2 Main characteristics of Ysyk-Köl Lake…………………………………………8
Table 2.1 Objectives and field methods…………………………………………………..24
Table 2.2 Number of interviewed people from different stakeholder groups……………..25
Table 2.3 Interview themes for the respective groups targeted in the research……………25
Table 2.4 Topics, number of participants and date and location of a focus group discussion
(FGD) and group discussions (GD) carried out during the field research…………………28
Table 3.1 Types of Protected Area governance by IUCN…………………………………38
Table 3.2 YKBR’s mandate according to its Statute………………………………………43
Table 3.3 YKBR’s current zoning scheme………………………………………………...44
Table 3.4 Protected areas within the YKBR……………………………………………….45
Table 4.1 Diversity of sacred sites in the YKBR with respect to biophysical elements
perceived as sacred…………………………………………………………………………49
Table 4.2 Some of the main reasons why local people visit particular sacred sites………..57
Table 4.3 Some rituals conducted on sacred sites by individuals and communities……….59
Table 5.1 Threats to biodiversity conservation in the YKBR: these themes emergent during
the research but were excluded from the present study……………………………………76
Table 5.2 Changes in institutional structure of the State Agency of Environmental
Protection and Forestry…………………………………………………………………….77
Table 5.3 Hunting companies that received a permit to use assigned areas in the buffer
zones of the YKBR for Foreign Tourist Hunting………………………………………….84
Table 5.4 Fines (in KGS) for poaching some endangered species………………………...96
vii
Table 5.5 Informants’ responses to the question regarding the main stakeholders in
Biosphere Reserve conservation………………………………………………………….98
Table 6.1 Local people’s main arguments for and against visiting sacred sites…………120
List of Figures
Figure 1.1 Map of Kyrgyzstan………………………………………………………………6
Figure 1.2 Map of YKBR……………………………………………………………………8
Figure 3.1 YKBR’s place within the institutional structure of the State Agency on
Environmental Protection and Forestry……………………………………………………46
Figure 4.1 Red dots show approximate location of sacred sites within the YKBR……….52
Figure 5.1 Scale of social subgroups based on their attitude to sacred sites……………...116
List of Plates
Plate 1. View on Ysyk-Köl Lake from Saimaluu-Tash [a field of stones with ancient
petroglyphs]………………………………………………………………………………….2
Plate 2. Syrt areas [alpine tundra] of Ysyk-Köl Biosphere Reserve……………………….12
Plate 3. Interview with a conservation manager…………………………………………...15
Plate 4. Interview with Dr. Shukurov E.J., a key informant……………………………….15
Plate 5. Interview with Kadyrbek Jakypov, guardian of Manjyly-Ata sacred site…………20
Plate 6. Interview with a ranger at a core area of Ysyk-Köl Biosphere Reserve…………..20
Plate 7. Participant observation with YKBR managers and rangers during anti-poaching
raid YKBR buffer zone nearby Sarychat-Eertash State Reserve…………………………..22
Plate 8. Focus group with sacred site guardians…………………………………………...22
Plate 9. A group conversation with sacred site guardians…………………………………30
Plate 10. Pilgrimage to the shore of Ysyk-Köl with a traditional practitioner……………..30
viii
Plate 11. Manjyly Ata sacred site………………………………………………………….54
Plate 12. Kamanduu- Köl sacred site………………………………………………………55
Plate 13. Karakol-Ata sacred site…………………………………………………………..55
Plate 14. Ak-chachuu ritual on the Ysyk-Köl Lake………………………………………..57
Plate 15. Tuloo ritual……………………………………………………………………….58
Plate 16. Countrywide meeting of sacred site guardians and traditional practitioners,
Bishkek, October 2014……………………………………………………………………..63
Plate 17. Although not a recognized guardian of this sacred site, the traditional practitioner
comes to Mazar-Bulak to conduct rituals and look after the place………………………...64
Plate 18. A sketch about Ysyk-Köl Biosphere Reserve……………………………………75
Plate 19. A former camp site of MK Travel Foreign Tourist Company in the core area of
Ysyk-Köl Biosphere Reserve……………………………………………………………...83
Plate 20.Ysyk-Köl Ecopost in Balykchy town……………………………………………..85
Plate 21. Pilgrims on Manjyly-Ata sacred site……………………………………………117
List of Boxes
Box 3.1 The defining features of ICCAs…………………………………………………..34
Box 3.2 UNESCO Biosphere Reserves Main Functions and Characteristics……………...40
Box 4.1 Ata-Jolu movement and pilgrimage to sacred sites……………………………….62
Box 4.2 Legend about Ysyk-Köl Lake…………………………………………………….65
Box 5.1 Complementary public outreach outlets for the YKBR…………………………100
Box 6.1. Wildlife matrix zones (mini reserves)…………………………………………..109
1
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Introduction
Sacred sites have been an important part of many indigenous cultures around the world
(Verschuuren et al. 2010). Sacred sites are culturally important in their own right, that is,
they have intrinsic value (Aitpaeva 2007). Besides their intrinsic value, sacred sites as
Indigenous and Community Conserved Areas (Borrini et al. 2004) are seen to have an
instrumental value for biocultural diversity conservation.
Sacred natural sites, usually defined as ‘areas of land or water having special spiritual
significance to peoples and communities’ (Verschuuren et al. 2010, p. 1), officially entered
the international protected areas agenda at the Fifth World Parks Congress, held in Durban,
South Africa in 2003. Since then international conservation organizations such as IUCN
and WWF have incorporated sacred sites in their conservation work. This makes perfect
sense because sacred sites have been protected by local communities around the world for
centuries (Verschuuren et al. 2010). In some communities (for instance, across Asia and
Africa) sacred sites have been better protected than most of the official protected areas
(Dudley et al. 2005). Moreover, some formally protected areas were established around
existing areas that had been already protected by local communities through traditional
‘conservation practices, including some elaborate and effective systems’ (Borrini et al.
2004, p. 20). However, establishment of a formal protected area would then trigger the
‘replacement’ of traditional conservation strategies by strategies defined by the government
(Borrini et al. 2004).
2
Ysyk-Köl State Reserve, the oldest formally protected area in Kyrgyzstan, was established
in 1948. Ysyk-Köl is the name of the lake as well as of the province in Kyrgyzstan where
the lake is situated. At the end of the 1990s, the entire territory of Ysyk-Köl province was
declared a Biosphere Reserve with a total area of 43,100 km2 (4,314,400 hectares) (Ysyk-
Köl Biosphere Reserve Statute, 2000). Ysyk-Köl and Sarychat-Eertash State Reserves as
well as Karakol National Park made up the core zones of the Ysyk-Köl Biosphere Reserve
YKBR). The newly established Biosphere Reserve was included in UNESCO’s List of
Biosphere Reserves and designated as a Ramsar site (UNESCO 2012).
The Ysyk-Köl Biosphere Reserve (YKBR) encompasses Ysyk-Köl Lake which has been
sacred for Kyrgyz people from time immemorial. It is also a big tourist destination in
Plate 1. View on Ysyk-Köl Lake from Saimaluu-Tash [a field of stones with ancient petroglyphs]
3
Kyrgyzstan due to its natural characteristics. Ysyk-Köl is located at an altitude of 1607
meters above sea level and surrounded by two mountain ranges: the Kunghei Ala-Too
(4,770 m) in the north and Terskei Ala-Too (5,200 m) in the south. Ysyk-Köl Lake’s length
is 178 km, its breadth is 60 km, and the maximum depth is 668 meters, which makes it the
world’s fifth deepest as well as second-largest high-altitude and second-largest saline lake
(De Batist et al. 2002, Klerkx and Imanackunov 2002, UNESCO 2012).
In 2007, Aigine Cultural Research Center (henceforth Aigine), a local NGO, surveyed local
communities and listed more than 100 sacred sites in Ysyk-Köl province (Aitpaeva 2009).
The current study builds on that initial survey and elaborates on instrumental value of
sacred sites for biocultural conservation. Understanding governance as ‘the setting,
application and enforcement of the rules of the game’ (Kjær 2004, p. 12), sacred sites
appear to have traditional governance system as they require the pilgrims to follow certain
rules and observe taboos, violation of which can cause pilgrim harm (Premauer 2013).
Sacred sites are community conserved areas (Borrini et al. 2004) and represent a
‘traditional’ model of conservation in YKBR.
Given the growing international interest in the role of Indigenous and Community
Conserved Areas (ICCAs) including sacred sites in nature conservation, this study attempts
to examine how community conserved sacred sites interact with formal conservation in the
Ysyk-Köl Biosphere Reserve, and how these two models of conservation, i.e., sacred sites
(being a traditional community-based model) and the Biosphere Reserve (being a formal
government-run protected area) can reinforce each other. The research findings provided
more generalized insights on how sacred areas (and local institutions that ensure protection
4
of these areas) can contribute to improvement of conservation in formal protected areas
such as biosphere reserves.
1.2 Research goal and objectives
The main question guiding the research is how sacred sites might fit into formal
conservation strategies in the Ysyk-Köl region? To answer this question, the following
research objectives were set:
o Objective 1 is to investigate what kinds of sacred sites exist and whether sacred sites
are being employed in existing governance and conservation strategies in Ysyk-Köl
Biosphere Reserve
o Objective 2 is to analyze the governance structure and current formal conservation
practices in Ysyk-Köl Biosphere Reserve (YKBR)
o Objective 3 is to examine whether sacred sites can be used as an instrument for formal
conservation, stewardship and governance in Ysyk-Köl Biosphere Reserve.
1.3 Research methods
Case study research strategy determined the choice of field methods. Main data collection
methods are listed below and discussed in more detail in the Methodology section:
Document analysis focused on Kyrgyzstan’s legislative acts pertaining to the
protected areas in general and the YKBR in particular. In 2013, YKBR submitted
the 2nd
Periodic Review to the MAB, reporting on progress and challenges in the
Ysyk-Köl Biosphere Reserve. Document review also included the analysis of
5
existing unpublished qualitative data that gathered by various NGOs, which have
implemented culture and environment-related projects in the Ysyk-Köl area.
Semi-structured interviews and focus group discussions were the major methods
of data collection. I have conducted 49 semi-structured interviews with
representatives of three main stakeholder groups: a) state officials involved in the
governance and management of the YKBR; b) traditional practitioners (e.g., sacred
sites’ guardians) and local communities; c) local and international scholars and
NGO experts working on environmental issues. I have conducted one focus group
discussion with the sacred site guardians and attended four group discussions
facilitated by other moderators (Chapter 2).
Participant observation was conducted during my stay in the YKBR. I visited a
number of sacred sites identified by Aigine (Aitpaeva 2009) and mapped them.
Research methodology was approved by the Joint-Faculty Research Ethics Board of the
University of Manitoba. All informants have granted prior and informed consent to
participate in the research. All research participants were informed about guaranteed
anonymity and confidentiality. In some cases, informants explicitly waived their right to be
anonymous and requested the investigator to give credit to the informant.
Snowball sampling technique was used to select informants. To reduce the risk of
disclosing informants, I used generic reference terms for all representatives of the same
stakeholder group, without providing a code number. For example, I quoted ‘conservation
manager’ to mark the opinions expressed by the state officials involved in the governance
and management of the YKBR, which included YKBR managers and rangers, the staff and
6
rangers of protected areas within the YKBR, and employees of the State Agency of
Environmental Protection and Forestry.
1.4 Study area
The Ysyk-Köl Biosphere Reserve (also referred as Issyk Kul Biosphere Reserve) is located
in Kyrgyzstan (Figure 1.1). Kyrgyzstan is a former Soviet Union Republic with a GDP of
7.226 billion USD (in 2013). The country gained independence in 1991. Kyrgyzstan covers
an area of 198, 500 km2 and its population is 6 million. The population is ethnically
diverse, comprising about 80 ethnic groups. Kyrgyz, Uzbek, Russian and Dungan ethnic
groups make up respectively 72.6%, 14.4%, 6.4% and 1.1% of the population. Kyrgyz is
the state language, whereas Russian has the status of an official language.
YKBR is the largest
protected area in
Kyrgyzstan. It
encompassed a number
of pre-existing
protected areas and
gained international
designation in 2001 (MAB 2002, UNESCO 2011, 2012). The Ysyk-Köl Biosphere Reserve
Statute (2000) set the Reserve’s coordinates from 41°08' to 42°59'N and from 75°38' to
80°18' E. The YKBR contains four zones and various land cover types and habitats for a
number of species (Figure 1.2; Table 1.1). Lake Ysyk-Köl is a keystone element of the
YKBR (Table 1.2).
Figure 1.1 Map of Kyrgyzstan. Source: BBC
7
Table 1.1 General characteristics of the YKBR (MAB 2002)
Ysyk-Köl region is also recognized by other international entities for its notable
biodiversity. For example, Ysyk-Köl Lake is a designated Ramsar site, a Freshwater
Ecoregion of World (#627), and some parts of the lake are recognized as an Important Bird
Area by Birdlife International. Mountains in the Ysyk-Köl region are recognized as
biodiversity hotspots by Conservation International. World Wildlife Fund (WWF) included
the Ysyk-Köl are in Global 200 Ecoregions as the ‘Tian Shan Montane Steppe and
Meadows’ (Wunderlich et al. 2014).
General characteristics
Total area 4,311,588 hectares (43,100 km2)
Core areas 145,072 (of which water surface is:
16,678)
Buffer zone 3,501,516 (of which water surface is:
457,145)
Transition areas 665,000
Major ecosystems and habitat types
Altitude range (meters above sea level) +1,609 to +7,439
Semi-desert and desert ecosystems, steppe
ecosystems, meadows and agricultural lands
in foothill zone
1,600-2,400 m above sea level (masl)
Juniper and spruce forests 2,000 - 3,000 masl
Alpine and sub-alpine meadows 2,600 - 4,000 masl
High mountain syrt zone (high mountain
tundra)
2,700 - 3,500 masl
Water ecosystems (Ysyk-Köl Lake,
mountain rivers, and numerous glacier lakes
and glaciers)
1,600 – 7,000 masl
Species
Total number of species 335 species
Amphibians 3 species
Reptiles 11 species
Mammalia 54 species
Birds 267 species
Species included in the Red Book of
Kyrgyzstan
39 species
8
Table 1.2 Main characteristics of Ysyk-Köl Lake (De Batist et al. 2002; Shabunin et al.
2002)
Approximate age 10 million years
Type Closed and warm monomictic lake
Length 182 km
Width Up to 60 km
Depth (max)/(average) 668 m/278m
Water surface area 6,236 km2
Coastline length 668 km
Water volume 1,736 km3
Water salinity 5.968g/kg
Number of tributary streams /Source
of water /Major inflow /outflow
rivers
120/melt-water from snow and about 830 glaciers
(from an area of 650 km2)/Jyrgalang and Tup Rivers
/0
About 450, 000 people live on the territory of the YKBR with 99% of the population
residing in the coastal area of Ysyk-Köl valley. Seventy-five percent of the population lives
in rural areas, whereas the urban population is concentrated in three cities, namely
Balykchy, Cholpon-Ata and Karakol. Ethnic groups within the YKBR are: Kyrgyz (86%),
Figure 1.2 Map of YKBR (Baetov 2006)
9
Russian (8%), Kazakh (1.5%), Uyghur (0.9%), Kalmyk (0.9) and Dungan (0.7%). Main
economic activities include livestock farming (sheep, cattle, horses, yaks, poultry);
agriculture (wheat, potatoes, barley, sunflowers) and horticulture (apricots, apples, pears,
and various berries); and hospitality (mostly in the northwestern part of the lake during
tourist season). Annually, during the short summer tourist season, about one million tourists
visit the Biosphere Reserve (YKBR 2nd
Periodic Review 2013).
1.5 Theory
A linked social-ecological systems approach lends itself well for analysis of governance
and conservation practices in the YKBR. The concept of socio-ecological systems (SESs)
promotes the concept of ‘humans in nature’ and emphasizes that the separation between
social and ecological systems is artificial and arbitrary (Berkes 2012). Anderies et al. (2004,
no page) defined SES as ‘an ecological system intricately linked with and affected by one
or more social systems.’ Scholars argued that humanity has been changing nature
throughout history and likewise, nature has been shaping the development of human
societies (Berkes 2012, Berkes et al. 2000). Thus, SES approach discards the concepts of
natural pristine systems (Gomez-Pompa and Kaus 1992) and social systems without nature,
while promoting the idea of dynamic coevolution of humanity and nature (Norgaard 1994,
Berkes and Folke 2002, Berkes 2012).
The SES approach has influenced Protected Areas’ design and management approaches
(Schwartzman et al. 2000). Growing recognition of SES contributed to evolution from
people-free or ‘fortress conservation’ to more people-centered conservation approaches
(Terborgh 2000, Wilshusen et al. 2002). This trend was also reflected in expansion of PA
10
management objectives and IUCN Protected Area categories (Dudley 2008, 2012). The
Biosphere Reserve (BR) concept is consistent with the SES concept and sets a goal of
improving people’s relationship with their environments across the world (Isacch 2008).
The BR concept was originated as an alternative to the national park model, had an explicit
aim to make parks and reserves community conscious (Ishwaran 2008) and emphasized the
need for reconciling livelihood needs and conservation as well as interlink between
biological and cultural diversity conservation (MAB 2002).
Integrating social and ecological dimensions in SESs has different implications than
analyses of social or ecological systems alone (Ludwig et al. 2001, Westley et al. 2002,
Folke et al. 2005). SES attributes such as multiple temporal and spatial scales and levels,
worldviews, drivers and feedback loops as well as resilience and thresholds need to be
taken into account during the SES analysis (Berkes et al. 2003). SES concept was
supplemented by the references to commons theory (Ostrom et al. 1999, Rutte 2011).
Resilience and thresholds were beyond the focus of this study and therefore, only concepts
of scales, levels, worldviews, drivers and feedback loops are employed for understanding
governance and conservation practices in the study area.
1.6 Significance of the proposed research
This study has both theoretical and practical significance. It addresses a gap in the literature
related to a) protected area governance and biodiversity conservation in Kyrgyzstan and b)
the role of sacred sites in formal conservation and protected area governance. The study
analyzes ‘key ingredients’ which make sacred sites community conserved areas in Ysyk-
Köl area. The research also identifies ways in which recognition of sacred sites can
11
improve governance and conservation in the YKBR. Given similarities in cultural, social
and historical contexts, those recommendations may be applicable to other protected areas
in Kyrgyzstan and possibly in Central Asia. As a part of the Community Conservation
Research Network (CCRN), the current research contributes to a better understanding of
how community-based conservation may improve formal conservation practices in the
Protected Areas in general and the Biosphere Reserves in particular.
1.7 Structure of the thesis
Thesis consists of seven chapters. Introduction is followed by a methodology chapter that
describes my worldview, data collection methods and data analysis techniques. Chapter 3 is
dedicated to a literature review relevant to major themes presented in the study. Chapters 4
and 5 present major results of the study and are built around Objectives 1and 2 respectively.
Chapter 4 describes sacred in Ysyk-Köl area as a network of community conserved areas.
Chapter 5 discusses governance and formal conservation in the Ysyk-Köl Biosphere
Reserve (YKBR). Chapters 4 and 5 describe two parallel models of conservation that ex-
exist in the Ysyk-Köl area: a) ‘traditional’ community based conservation model
represented by sacred sites and b) formal, i.e., government-run conservation represented by
the Biosphere Reserve. Chapter 6 is built around objective 3 and synthesizes major findings
and suggests the ways in which sacred sites can improve formal conservation in the YKBR.
Each of these three chapter has its own short introduction, presentation of study findings
pertaining to a particular objective, discussion and conclusion. The final conclusion chapter
revisits research objectives, highlights overall contributions and insights of the research and
suggests topics of further research.
12
Plate 2. Syrt areas [alpine tundra] of Ysyk-Köl Biosphere Reserve
13
CHAPTER 2. METHODOLOGY AND RESEARCH DESIGN
This chapter explains in detail the worldview, the research design and strategy, and field
methods used during field research in June-November 2014. The chapter provides
researcher’s personal statement, philosophical worldview and describes sampling technique
and data verification procedures, and reports on topics covered through interviews and
focus group discussion.
I was born and raised in Ysyk-Köl area, which in 2011 acquired a status of the UNESCO
Biosphere Reserve. Hence, I was well familiar with local worldviews, social institutions
and livelihood practices. Before starting the Master’s program I was involved in the
research of sacred sites in other regions of Kyrgyzstan, namely Batken, Naryn and Chui
regions. There were two factors that allowed me to counterbalance potential biases that may
arise from being too familiar with the study are: a) the territory of the YKBR is very large
(43,100 km2) and is home for about 500,000 people. As a result, despite the fact that I was
born and raised in the area, my knowledge was limited to the community I grew up in; and
b) my research experience on sacred sites in other regions of Kyrgyzstan gave me a
valuable baseline data against which I could cross check my findings (Aitpaeva 2013).
2.1 Philosophical worldview
Creswell (2009) identifies empowerment, issue and change orientation, the collaborative
and political nature of research to be the main features of the participatory worldview. This
study assessed whether sacred sites as community conserved areas are being employed
(and/or how they can be employed) in conservation strategies in Ysyk-Köl Biosphere
Reserve of Kyrgyzstan. The study’s focus on sacred sites as community conserved areas
14
can help to draw scholars’, practitioners’, and the general public’s attention to the
phenomenon of sacred sites in Kyrgyzstan, and thus empower local communities that have
sacred sites. This research examined two conservation paradigms: 1) formal conservation
exemplified by government protected areas and 2) traditional forms of conservation
exemplified by sacred sites. The research discussed features of both systems and analyzed
whether these two paradigms should be merged into one holistic system or whether they
should remain separate for more efficient and effective biocultural conservation. Thus, this
study is issue and change oriented. The research calls for collaborative work with the
stakeholders involved in formal and community conservation in Ysy-Kol Biosphere
Reserve. Hence, this study also falls into the participatory research paradigm.
2.2 Research design
Qualitative research design is well suited to achieving the study objectives. Corbin and
Strauss (2008, p.17) define qualitative research as a type of research that generates findings
without using ‘statistical procedures or other means of quantification.’ Qualitative research
explores experiences and feelings, opinions and understandings of individual people and/or
groups (Groenewald, 2004) i.e., ‘elucidating human environments and human experiences
within a variety of conceptual frameworks’ (Hilary and Rofe 2010, p.5). Qualitative
research gathers data in natural settings without a need for an experimental type of design
(Hancock, 2002). Woods (2006) pointed out five features of qualitative research: a) a focus
on natural settings; b) interest in meanings; c) consideration of perspectives and
understandings; d) emphasis on process; and e) bias towards inductive analysis.
15
Plate 4. Interview with Dr. Shukurov E.J., a key informant
Plate 3. Interview with a conservation manager
16
The research employs case study research strategy and a combination of non-participatory
(document review) and participatory (key informant interviews, semi-structured interviews,
focus groups and participatory observation) research methods. Participatory methods
involve research participants as contributors to the research. The research participants
receive an opportunity to direct the research to make it more reflective of the participant’s
opinions on problems and issues affecting their community (Berg and Lune 2004). An
emphasis on participatory qualitative methods allows research participants to voice and
channel their values and aspirations into relevant forums (Wang and Redwood-Jones 2001).
Moreover, participatory methods allow the researcher to establish rapport, and in some
cases participatory methods can become a tool for research participants’ empowerment
(Pink 2013).
A frequently cited limitation to qualitative research is its lack of generalizability. Due to
usually small samples and selection of subjects on a non-random basis, it may be difficult
to extrapolate study findings and results to a larger population and area (Hancock 2002).
The issue of generalizability is addressed in more detail in the Research Strategy
subsection.
2.3 Research strategy
I have adopted the case study approach for the purposes of this research. Yin (2009, p.18)
argues that a case study strategy is a method of empirical inquiry that enables a researcher
to generate answers to the ‘what?’, ‘how?’, and ‘why?’ questions by using multiple sources
of evidence for examining ‘a contemporary phenomenon within its real-life context when
the boundaries between phenomenon and context are not clearly evident.’ At the same time,
a case study itself, being a bounded system of interrelated elements, should have clearly
17
identifiable boundaries (Stake 2006, p.1). Well-identified distinctive characteristics of a
case study, i.e., boundaries, distinguish a case study from a study with small sample size
(Stake 2006, p.1). The current case study represents a bounded system and has clearly
identified boundaries – geographical and managerial. Geographically the case study is
limited by the boundaries of the Ysyk-Köl Biosphere Reserve: the study focuses on formal
and community conservation strategies and practices. Management-wise the case study
encompasses management and governance arrangements in the Biosphere itself as well as
respective State agencies located outside of the Reserve, in the capital of the country.
Stake (2005) distinguishes three types of case studies, namely intrinsic, instrumental and
collective case studies. Collective case studies are also known as multiple case studies
(Stake 2006, Yin 2009). The intrinsic case study looks at the dynamics of a given situation
and attempts to understand those dynamics within the context of a particular case. My work
on governance and biocultural conservation in Ysyk-Köl Biosphere Reserve is a single case
study, which is used to provide answers for the research questions (Stake 2005, Creswell
2009, Yin 2009). This case study investigates current management arrangements in Ysyk-
Köl Biosphere Reserve and attempts to explain them within a local context. Therefore,
from one perspective this study can be classified as intrinsic.
The instrumental case study is used to represent other cases to generate a more
comprehensive understanding of broader questions about given systems (Stake 2005). Yin
(2003) distinguishes exploratory and explanatory sub-types within the instrumental type.
Exploratory case studies focus on building a theory, while explanatory case studies focus
on testing a theory (Bassey 1999). Even though my study aims to investigate the particular
18
case of Ysyk-Köl Biosphere Reserve (where two parallel conservation practices co-exist,
i.e., formal and community conservation), the case study also aims to address a broader
question about the pros and cons of incorporating community conserved areas into formal
conservation strategies. This fact makes the current case study fit into the instrumental type
as well. Within the instrumental type, the current study falls into the exploratory, theory
seeking sub-type.
Research comprising a number of coordinated case studies makes a collective case
study (Stake 1995, 2005, 2006; Yin 2003). My research also fits into this case-study type
because it is a part of the Community Conservation Research Network (CCRN). The
CCRN focuses on ‘how local communities initiate and participate in environmental
conservation and stewardship, notably in coastal areas of Canada and beyond’ (CCRN p.1)
and brings together scholars, universities, NGOs, First Nations and young researchers from
Canada and all over the world (CCRN p.1). The CCRN aims to achieve its goal ‘by
comparing 'study sites' on the east and west coasts of Canada (Nova Scotia, Labrador and
B.C.) and in eight other nations in the Americas, Asia and Africa’ (CCRN 2013, p.1). the
current study is the ninth international case study within the framework of the CCRN.
Being part of a broader research network helps to address certain limitations of intrinsic
case studies. Gerring (2004) pointed out that it may be difficult to generalize case study
findings; however, the CCRN platform allows exploring similarities and differences across
cases. Moreover, CCRN plans to produce joint publications that will attempt to coordinate,
aggregate and synthesize the evidence from individual case studies. This enhances the
19
current study’s claims for generalizability (Johnson & Christensen, 2008, p. 408), which
can take several forms (Cohen et al. 2007):
o From the single instance to the class of instances that it represents (for example,
insights on governance and conservation in Ysyk-Köl Biosphere Reserve can be
applicable to other biosphere reserves in the same geographic region);
o From features of the single-case to a multiplicity of classes with the same features
(for example, the fact that ICCAs are not recognized in Kyrgyzstan’s legislation can
provide insights as to why ICCAs are not recognized in other countries);
o From the single features of part of the case to the whole of that case (for example,
traditional conservation practices and taboos used in ICCAs can provide insights for
improving protection of formally protected areas).
Thus, the intrinsic nature of this case study and its clearly defined boundaries provided
valuable context-rooted, case-specific insights, which made the research findings more
valuable for local stakeholders. On the other hand, the study’s instrumental nature and its
being part of a collective case study increased findings’ generalizability.
2.4 Research methods
Document analysis, semi-structured interviews, key informant interviews, participant
observation and focus groups were used as primary field methods to meet research
objectives (Table 2.1). The following paragraphs explain in detail each of these methods.
20
Plate 6. Interview with a ranger at a core area of Ysyk-Köl Biosphere Reserve
Plate 5. Interview with Kadyrbek Jakypov, guardian of Manjyly-Ata sacred site
21
2.4.1 Documents analysis
Document analysis is a ‘systematic procedure for reviewing or evaluating documents’
(Bowen 2009, p. 27). Documents contain information that has been recorded without a
researcher's intervention (Bowen 2009). Document analysis requires eliciting, examining
and interpreting data from the documents to obtain meaning and understanding of the issue
under investigation (Corbin and Strauss 2008). Documents are socially produced
constructs, which are created, circulated and used in socially organized ways (Atkinson and
Coffey 2004).
Bowen (2009, p. 29) argues that document analysis is ‘particularly applicable to qualitative
case studies’ because it helps to produce rich descriptions of a given phenomenon.
Document analysis can yield useful qualitative data such as excerpts, quotations, or entire
passages (Labuschagne 2003), set a context for the research and provide insights for
interviews, focus groups and other methods, and verify findings through triangulation
(Love 2003, Bowen 2009).
In my research, I reviewed primary government documents (laws and regulations)
pertaining to protected areas in general and the YKBR in particular. Also, I reviewed
published and unpublished qualitative data related to sacred sites and traditional ecological
knowledge. I also took pictures wherever possible to document sacred sites or my
observations. All the pictures published in this work are mine except where they are
credited to some other source.
22
Plate 8. Focus group with sacred site guardians
Plate 7. Participant observation with YKBR managers and rangers during anti-poaching raid
23
2.4.2 Participant observation
Bernard (2006, p.344) states that participant observation ‘puts you where the action is and
lets you collect data.’ As a participant observer I was part of YKBR’s two week anti-
poaching raid. During this raid I was assigned to the group that patrolled syrt zones of
southern Ysyk-Köl. Also, as a participant observer I visited sacred sites in the Ysyk-Köl
area, which are summaries in the Table 4.1 of Chapter 4). Using Aigine’s survey of sacred
sites in Ysyk-Köl area (Aitpaeva 2009) as baseline data: a) I mapped sacred sites for the
first time and b) I identified what kind of biophysical elements were there in these sacred
sites. The descriptive survey of 120 sacred sites conducted by Aigine served as a sampling
pool for the 29 sites I visited during this study. I attempted to visit at least one sacred site
that contained a particular biophysical element (Table 4.1).
During fieldwork, a researcher may act in one of three roles (Bernard 2006), namely,
complete participant, complete observer, and participant observer. Being a complete
participant implies making observations of the group without telling the group that one is
conducting research. Being a complete observer implies recording group behavior with as
little interaction with group members as possible (Bernard 2006). Neither a complete
participant nor a complete observer role lent itself to the purposes of this research. I could
not assume complete participant role (i.e., observing a group without informing it and
obtaining its permission) due to research ethics; and a complete observer role would
provide little qualitative data. That is why I relied on the participant observer role, which
allowed me to participate in some activities of a group and make observations both as an
insider and/or an outsider (Bernard 2006).
24
Bernard (2006, p.344) emphasizes the importance of ‘establishing rapport and learning to
act so that people go about their business as usual when you show up.’ Being from the
research area, speaking the local languages (Kyrgyz and Russian) and understanding
cultural specificities made it unproblematic to establish rapport.
2.4.3 Semi‐structured interviews and key informant interviews
During the study 49 people were interviewed (Table 2.2). The interviews followed a semi‐
structured format and used an interview guide (Table 2.3), that is, a list of issues to be
covered in the interview (Dunn 2005). The choice of an interview guide versus an interview
schedule was stipulated by the flexibility of the former (Dunn 2005). The interview guide
allows the ‘natural’ flow of the conversation but requires a researcher to direct the
conversation to cover topics of interest (Dunn 2005). Interviews consisted of primary and
secondary questions. Dunn (2005, p.83) defines primary questions as ‘opening questions to
initiate a discussion on a new theme or topic’ and secondary questions as ‘prompts that
encourage the informant to follow up or expand on an issue already discussed.’
Table 2.1 Objectives and field methods
Objective Methods used for the objective Triangulation
1 Semi-structured interviews
Focus group discussion
Document review
Key informant interviews
2 Semi-structures interviews
Key informant interviews
Focus group
Document review
Key informant interviews
3 Semi-structures interviews
Key informant interviews
Participant observation
Document review
Among the interviewees, three key informants were interviewed several times. Sofaer
(2002) identifies key informants as the individuals who possess specific skills, knowledge,
experience, and/or expertise in particular issue(s) related to the research project or project
25
participants. Two of the key informants were local scholars who also had affiliations with
local NGOs and the third key informant was a sacred site guardian. The strength of the key
informant interview method was in providing insider information closely related to the
issue under investigation, which was difficult to gather by other methods (Mack et al.
2005).
Table 2.2 Number of interviewed people from different stakeholder groups
Stakeholder group Number of interviewed people
Government officials/conservation managers 23
Local community members and sacred site guardians 15
Local scholars and NGOs 11
Table 2.3 Interview themes for the respective groups targeted in the research
Groups to be
interviewed
Main questions and probes
Government officials What are the strengths and weaknesses of current governance
arrangements?
Please, tell me how the governance patterns in the YKBR
have changed over time?
o What are the differences between Soviet-era and modern
governance structure?
What are the ways for improving the governance
arrangements?
Who are the stakeholders involved in governance and
biodiversity conservation?
o Which stakeholders should be involved?
Currently, what role are local communities playing in
governance and biodiversity conservation?
o What role should communities play in governance and
biodiversity conservation?
Sacred site guardians
and local community
members
Are there some traditional institutions/mechanisms for
environmental conservation?
Who are the main stakeholders involved in governance and
biodiversity conservation?
How do people/communities act towards sacred sites? Why?
What are the rules about sacred sites?
What role do sacred sites play in your everyday life?
How does a sacred site become such?
Why are certain places called sacred and others are not?
26
What is the role of sacred sites in environmental
conservation?
o Can sacred sites be used for conservation? How?
Who is the karoolchu (the guardian/custodian of a sacred
site)?
o What are the functions of the karoolchu?
International and local
scholars and NGO
representatives
What kind of work/research related to conservation practices
in general and protected areas in particular has been done by
you/your organization?
Who are the major stakeholders in environmental
conservation in Kyrgyzstan? What are their roles? What
should their roles be?
Are local communities involved in governance and
biodiversity conservation in the YKBR?
Are there any local community-based conservation models in
the YKBR?
2.4.3.1 Interview sampling technique. The research employed non-probabilistic sampling
technique, i.e., sampling that does not involve a random selection process (Yin 2009).
Snowball sampling is commonly used in qualitative research (Atkinson and Flint 2001).
The non-probabilistic sampling method does not imply that it is non-representative of a
population and is used when a proper sampling frame of the population is absent (Doherty
1994, Faugier and Sargeant 1996, Atkinson and Flint 2001). This research involved a
number of stakeholders such as government officials, traditional practitioners, civil society
activists and scholars who were involved in biodiversity conservation in the Ysyk-Köl
area. The diversity of stakeholders made it difficult to develop an adequate sampling frame.
For this reason, the research used a snowball sampling technique, which implies that every
sample unit leads to another similar unit, i.e., the next sample unit (Faugier and Sargeant
1996, Golafshani 2003). Following the ‘principle of saturation’, I stopped seeking out new
informants from each stakeholder group when interviews ceased yielding new information
and insights (Cameron 2008).
27
2.4.4 Focus group discussions
The focus group method involves small group discussion on a topic or issue identified by
the researcher (Cameron 2008, Creswell 2009). The researcher introduces the topic and
invites and moderates discussion from the group, which usually consists of 6-10 members
(Hancock 2002, Cameron 2008). A focus group can produce data related to depth and
gravity of opinions regarding the issue, differences in stakeholders’ perspectives and
interactions between the participants (Mack et al. 2005). Focus groups can also be used to
validate the findings of a study (Hancock 2002).
In my research, one focus group discussion was conducted with sacred site guardians
(Table 2.4). Cameron (2008) points out that, depending on the goal of the research, the
focus group can gather together people with similar characteristics or people with different
characteristics. Taking into account the differences in perception and interaction culture
between members of the stakeholder groups, the focus group gathered participants with
similar characteristics using the snowball recruitment technique (Cameron 2008). The focus
group discussion brought together sacred site guardians not only from Ysyk-Köl but also
from all over the country. There were two reasons for including sacred site guardians from
other regions: a) I was able to find only 3-4 sacred sites in the Ysyk-Köl region that have
permanent guardians and b) traditional knowledge related to sacred sites across the country
is mostly similar and sacred site guardians as well as pilgrims from other regions frequently
visit sacred sites in the Ysyk-Köl region. The focus group discussion was used to explore
questions related to Objectives 2 and 3 as well as to validate the data gathered through
participatory observations and semi-structured interviews.
28
Besides the focus group discussion with sacred site guardians, I also attended a number of
group discussions organized and/or facilitated by other people (Table 2.4). These
discussions were not audio recorded, and I took notes on opinions and views that emerged
over the course of those discussions.
Table 2.4 Topics, number of participants and date and location of a focus group
discussion (FGD) and group discussions (GD) carried out during the field research
Title/subject Participants Date and location
FGD: Role of sacred sites and their guardians
in conservation
15 Bishkek, October 26,
2014
GD: Nurturing, preserving and losing
sacredness
50 Bishkek, October 27,
2014
GD: Meeting of government officials with local
community leaders on establishment of Khan-
Tenir National Park
70 Karakol, July, 2017
GD: Meeting with traditional practitioners on
indigenous research ethics at Aikol Orgo
35 Kok Jar village, October
1, 2017
GD: Spiritual practices and livelihoods in
sacred sites in mountainous areas
30 Bishkek, October 28,
2017
2.5. Data analysis, validity and verification
Before starting the data analysis, I conducted data management by transcribing the
interviews and an audio recording of a focus group discussion and typing up field notes.
Interviews were transcribed in the language the interviewee spoke during the interview,
which was either Kyrgyz or Russian or sometimes a combination of both. Field notes were
taken in Kyrgyz language. After having audio files and field notes transcribed, I read
though the transcribed texts a number of times to identify emerging themes. Ryan and
Bernard (2008) define themes as fundamental concepts and/or ideas a research tries to
describe and highlights four main steps in thematic analysis: a) identifying themes and
subthemes, b) deciding which themes are important in the particular study, c) building
hierarchies of themes and d) linking those themes to a theory.
29
I employed two techniques for identifying the themes: a) I looked for recurring topics in the
transcribed texts (Bernard 2006) and b) I looked for terms and expressions that are
frequently used by informants but equivalents of which do not necessarily exist in English
(e.g., terms kasiet baguu – kasiet kachuu, lit. nurturing of sacredness – escape of
sacredness). For convenience’s sake, local terms are put in Italics when transliterated into
English.
The hierarchy of themes and connections among them were done by hand on sheets of
paper. Narratives and quotes from the transcribed text that illustrated most comprehensively
a particular idea were selected to be included into the thesis. In cases, where there were
varying opinions on the same topic, quotes reflecting each opinion were provided one under
another.
Creswell (2007) point out that validation of data is important for ensuring the credibility the
findings. Validity is the result of the researcher’s efforts to achieve accuracy of the
presented data and themes. The research employed triangulation and member checking
techniques for ensuring internal validity and data verification (Anfara et al. 2002, Stake
2005).
Triangulation allows cross-referencing data obtained through different methods and from
different sources. The information pertaining to formal conservation was checked whenever
possible against official documents and independent reports. Serving as verification
method, member checking was implemented through reiteration and paraphrasing of
information during interviews and the focus groups (Creswell and Miller 2000) to ensure
that I grasped informant’s opinion correctly.
30
Plate 9. A group conversation with sacred site guardians
Plate 10. Pilgrimage to the shore of Ysyk-Köl with a traditional practitioner
31
CHAPTER 3. LITERATURE REVIEW
3.1 Sacred Sites and Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK)
Sacred Natural Sites (SNS) are places of special spiritual, religious and cultural
significance to peoples and communities (Verschuuren et al. 2010). The term ‘natural’ in
this definition is used to contrast areas which are mostly natural from the human-made
sacred sites ‘with little or no nature (e.g., mosques, churches or temples)’ (Verschuuren et
al. 2010, p. 2). The current study has revealed that in the case of Ysyk-Köl Biosphere
Reserve many sacred sites contain both natural as well as human-made elements (Samakov
& Berkes, in press), and that is why in this work I use more inclusive definition of sacred
sites as ‘areas of land and bodies of water, as well as constructions and items, which are
spiritually and/or religiously meaningful for local people and where sacral practices are
performed’ (Aitpaeva 2013, p.7).
Sacred sites are diverse and are encountered in various cultures around the world
(Verschuuren et al. 2010). Particular elements of nature such as mountains, gorges, trees,
springs and stones as well as entire landscape and seascapes such as groves and lakes can
be considered a sacred area (Aitpaeva et al. 2007, Aitpaeva 2009, Verschuuren et al. 2010).
Sacredness i.e., spiritual or religious significance of a particular site is often rooted in
worldviews, beliefs and traditional ecological knowledge (TEK). TEK is ‘a cumulative
body of knowledge, practice, and belief, evolving by adaptive processes and handed down
through generations by cultural transmission, about the relationship of living beings
(including humans) with one another and with their environment’ (Berkes 2012, p.7). TEK
comprises both the ways of knowing (knowing as a process) and information (knowledge
per se) (Berkes 2012).
32
Sacredness of a place can be manifested in a form of tribute to ancestors or saint people,
access to supernatural dimensions (Aitpaeva et al. 2007), and respect of spiritual entities
and gods that reside in the area (MacDonald 2003, Schaaf and Lee 2006). Aitpaeva et al.
(2007) observed that there is usually an element of power attached to sacred sites. Sacred
sites are believed to possess a power that pilgrims are in need for. For example, pilgrims
may go to sacred sites to ask for health in general and cure for a particular disease, some
may go to ask for success in business and luck in a particular undertaking (Aitpaeva et al.
2007). Anderson et al. (2005) stated that species endemism and high ethno-botanical
importance may be another reason for the existence of sacred areas.
Existence of sacred sites usually implies existence of social institutions (rules and norms)
that regulate human behavior at a particular sacred area. These institutions include rules
related to access and use (MacDonald 2003), desirable dress-code and behavioral
restrictions (such as prohibition to drink alcohol or smoke) (Aitpaeva et al. 2007) and site-
specific taboos (Verschuuren et al. 2010, Premauer and Berkes 2012, Premauer 2013).
Schaaf and Lee (2006) concluded that restrictions and taboos on sacred sites related to
access and use, and acceptable human behavior and practice may result in conservation of
important refuge for different species. Conservation may be promoted indirectly as a result
of social institutions’ ability to enforce resource use regulations (Tengö et al. 2007), and the
fear of supernatural sanctions for improper behavior (Aitpaeva et al. 2007, Aitpaeva 2010,
Premauer and Berkes 2012). Thus, sacred sites that restrict and regulate access and use of
particular areas can be considered as traditional protected areas. However, in the eyes of
many traditional societies, their whole territory is sacred (Verschuuren et al. 2010) and thus
the whole territory should be protected and treated with care and respect.
33
Social institutions that govern sacred sites are similar to institutions governing common-
pool resources (Rutte 2011). In recent years, numerous types of shared resources have been
recognized as commons (Hess 2008), and these are usually referred to as ‘new commons.’
In the classification of new commons, sacred sites fit into the subcategory of ‘spiritual
commons’ within the broader category of ‘cultural commons’ (Hess 2008).
Sacred sites in Kyrgyzstan are not well represented in the international literature (Dompke
& Musina, 2004, Aitpaeva 2006, Usubalieva-Grishchuk 2012, Samakov & Berkes, in
press). Local scholars and research centers such as Aigine Cultural Research Centre have
conducted large-scale research on sacred sites and related traditional knowledge. Aigine
conducted a large scale survey of sacred sites in the Ysyk-Köl are in 2007 and identified
about 120 of them. These studies focus on intrinsic cultural importance of sacred sites.
However, the role of sacred sites within formal protected areas has not been thoroughly
investigated. The current study aims to fill in that gap.
3.2 Indigenous and Community Conserved Areas (ICCAs)
Sacred sites fit into the broader concept of Indigenous and Community Conserved Areas
(ICCAs). ICCAs incorporate such concepts as bio-cultural heritage sites, community
reserves, indigenous protected areas, community forests, sacred groves, and the like
(Borrini et al. 2004, Oviedo 2006, TILCEPA 2008). Emergence of the ICCA concept
demonstrates increased global recognition of local community-based conservation, in
which local and indigenous governance mechanisms are seen to contribute to formal
conservation objectives and goals (CENESTA 2009), and biological and cultural diversity
are treated as a unit (Gavin et al. 2015).
34
The concept of ICCAs acknowledges a plurality of conservation practices, including
indigenous conservation-through-use practices (Berkes 2007, 2009), sacred sites and
species protection through taboo systems (Premauer 2013), and conservation for other
cultural/spiritual reasons (Posey 1999, Colding and Folke 2001). Kothari (2006) concluded
that communities’ incentives to establish and/or maintain ICCAs may be related to
livelihood security, spiritual, aesthetic and/or cultural survival and self-defense. The
concept of ICCAs brings together acknowledgement of fundamental indigenous rights
(Borrini et al. 2004), biodiversity conservation, livelihood protection and human well-being
(Oviedo 2006, TILCEPA 2008). Kothari (2006) defined ICCAs as areas, which have been
self-initiated, protected, and governed by local, mobile or Indigenous Peoples. Compete
definition is given in Box 3.1
Box 3.1 The defining features of ICCAs (Source: CENESTA 2009)
ICCAs are natural and/or modified ecosystems containing significant biodiversity values,
ecological services and cultural values, voluntarily conserved by Indigenous Peoples and
local communities, both sedentary and mobile, through customary laws or other effective
means. ICCAs can include ecosystems with minimum to substantial human influence as
well as cases of continuation, revival or modification of traditional practices or new
initiatives taken up by communities in the face of new threats or opportunities. Several of
them are inviolate zones ranging from very small to large stretches of land and waterscapes.
Three features can be taken as defining characteristics of ICCAs:
o A community is closely connected to a well-defined ecosystem (or to a species and its
habitat) culturally and/or because of survival and dependence for livelihood;
o The community management decisions and efforts lead to the conservation of the
ecosystem's habitats, species, ecological services and associated cultural values (even
when the conscious objective of such management may be different than conservation
per se, and be, for instance, related to material livelihood, water security, safeguarding
of cultural and spiritual places, etc).
o The community is the major player in decision-making (governance) and
implementation regarding the management of the site, implying that community
institutions have the capacity to enforce regulations; in many situations there may be
other stakeholders in collaboration or partnership, but primary decision-making rests
with the concerned community.
35
ICCAs are the products of particular cultural and historical contexts and as a result they are
very diverse in terms of age, size and scale, biodiversity value, management practices and
legitimacy of governing institutions (CENESTA 2009). ICCAs management practices
include norms and rules, worldviews, values and beliefs, and community decision-making
mechanisms such as traditional institution of sacred sites guardians in Kyrgyzstan
(Aitpaeva 2007), or newly established collective institutions (e.g., community forests in
Oaxaca) (Robson 2007). ICCAs tenure status may differ, they can be owned by private
individuals, the government, corporations or by community (Kothari 2006). As a result,
‘communities might legally own the land and its resources, or have the legal right to use the
resources, or they may have only de facto control’ (Premauer 2013, p. 20).
Government recognition of ICCAs is a controversial issue (Borrini et al. 2004, TILCEPA
2008). Government recognition can limit communities autonomy in decision-making
(Newing and Wahl 2004, Martin et al. 2009, Sheridan 2009, Hoole and Berkes 2010) or
even cause displacement of inhabitants out of a formally protected area (TILCEPA 2008).
On the other hand, government support can be necessary to ensure conservation of ICCAs
provided that stakeholders manage to build effective collaboration (Brockington et al.
2008).
Only some ICCAs have explicit biodiversity conservation goals and optimal conservation
outcomes (Borrini et al. 2004, TILCEPA 2008). At the same time ICCAs can contribute to
conservation indirectly: by conserving critical or ecosystem services, by transmitting and
promoting conservation values, and by complementing official protected area systems
(Oviedo, 2006). ICCAs case studies from several regions, documents and publications as
36
well as up to date recommendations for policy and research are available at the ICCA
Consortium website (ICCA Consortium 2014).
In sum, the concept of ICCAs (including sacred sites) seems to be a viable complementary
tool that can improve the formal conservation practices. Sacred sites (and ICCAs in
general) maintain and foster ties between communities and their environments
(Ramakrishnan 1998, Verschuuren 2010), which increases the likelihood for effective
conservation. Recognition of ICCAs importance in formal conservation practices is likely
to promote understanding and designing of conservation practices through the lens of
linked and dynamic social-ecological systems lens.
3.3 Protected Area (PA) Governance
IUCN defines a protected area as ‘a clearly defined geographical space, recognized,
dedicated and managed, through legal or other effective means, to achieve the long-term
conservation of nature with associated ecosystem services and cultural values’ (Borrini-
Feyerabend et al. 2013, p. 5). PA governance is a complex term that describes principles,
policies and rules regarding decision-making in running PAs (Borrini et al. 2004). Graham
et al. (2003) identified governance as interactions among structures, processes and
traditions that determine how decisions are made, power and responsibilities are shared,
and stakeholders are involved in the managing a given PA. Thus, the notion of PA
governance combines the components of PA and governance definitions.
When establishing the Program of Work on Protected Areas (PoWPA), the Parties to the
CBD explicitly identified ‘poor governance’ to be a hindrance for achieving protected areas
objectives around the world (CBD 2004). Armitage et al. (2012, p. 247-248) noted that
37
conventional notions of governance including ‘good’ and ‘poor’ governance are shifting
and identified five key emerging concepts in environmental governance: (1) recognition of
the importance of fit and scale; (2) fostering adaptiveness, flexibility, and learning; (3)
coproducing knowledge from diverse sources; (4) understanding the emergence of new
actors and their roles in governance; and (5) changing expectations about accountability
and legitimacy.
Borrini et al. (2004) named some major pillars for analyzing the PA governance such as
identification of key actors (i.e., stakeholders and rightsholders) and levels of decision
making (global – international – national – subnational – particular PA – units of a
particular PA). Examining available governance instruments (such as legal, financial,
social, and informational) and stakeholders’ powers and rights is cornerstone element of PA
governance analysis (Graham et al. 2003). Depending on who makes decisions and holds
responsibility, it is possible two distinguish four governance types. In some cases, a PA of
given governance type can be ‘nested’ within another type (Borrini-Feyerabend 2013).
PAs are established for a variety of reasons and with various purposes. Dudley (2008)
identified ‘must’ objectives that any PA in all six categories should be aiming to fulfill.
Based on PA’s main management objectives, which should apply to at least three-quarters
of the protected area (the 75 per cent rule), IUCN identifies six PA categories (Borrini-
Feyerabend 2013). The ’75 % rule’ was also included into Kyrgyzstan’s Law on Protected
Areas (Signed on May 28, 1994 № 1561-XII). Similarly to the nested structure of PA
governance types, different management categories can be nested within one another
(Dudley 2008) (Table 3.1).
38
Table 3.1 Types of Protected Area governance by IUCN (Borrini-Feyerabend et al.
2013, p. 29)
Governance Type Sub-types
Type A. Governance by
government
o Federal or national ministry or agency in charge
o Sub-national ministry or agency in charge (e.g., at
regional, provincial, municipal level)
o Government-delegated management (e.g., to an NGO)
Type B. Shared
governance
o Transboundary governance (formal arrangements
between one or more sovereign States or Territories)
o Collaborative governance (through various ways in which
diverse actors and institutions work together)
o Joint governance (pluralist board or other multiparty
governing body)
Type C. Private
governance
Conserved areas established and run by:
o individual landowners
o non-profit organizations (e.g., NGOs, universities)
o for-profit organizations (e.g., corporate landowners)
Type D. Governance by
indigenous
peoples and local
communities
o Indigenous peoples’ conserved territories and areas –
established and run by indigenous peoples
o Community conserved areas and territories – established
and run by local communities
Current list of PA management objectives and accepted governance types is a result of
complex process of changing attitudes towards conservation approaches (Dudley 2008,
2012). Since the 1980s, the IUCN has been advocating for the diversification conservation
approaches by expanding PA management objectives and broadening the range of
legitimate stakeholders who should be involved in managing PAs (Premauer 2013). As a
result of IUCN advocacy, Protected Landscapes and Protected Sustainable Use Areas
(Categories V and VI) were added to PAs management categories (Premauer 2013). Within
a broader global trend to expand the constituency of conservation, making conservation
more pluralistic and cross-cultural governance regimes were further expanded to include
private, co-management (including trans-boundary) and community-based forms of
governance as well as wider range of legitimate social actors including aboriginal groups
39
and local communities (Brown 2002, Berkes 2004, 2006). The most recent approach for PA
governance is Indigenous and Community Conserved Areas and Territories (ICCAs).
ICCAs aim to better engage local people in conservation efforts thus improving
conservation results as well as securing indigenous and local peoples’ livelihoods and
rights (Oviedo 2006, TILCEPA 2008).
3.4 UNESCO Biosphere Reserves
The statutory framework of the World Network of Biosphere Reserves (UNESCO 1996, p.
4) defines biosphere reserves as ‘areas of terrestrial and coastal/marine ecosystems or a
combination thereof, which are internationally recognized within the framework of
UNESCO's Program on Man and the Biosphere (MAB).’ MAB describes biosphere
reserves (BRs) as ‘learning sites for testing and demonstrating innovative approaches to
sustainable development that aim to reconcile conservation of biological and cultural
diversity with social-economic development through promoting partnerships between
people and their environments’ (Box 3.2) (UNESCO 2011). The UNESCO Man and the
Biosphere Program (MAB), was initiated in early 1970s and proposed an interdisciplinary
research agenda and capacity building effort with a goal of improving the humanity’s
relationship with the environment. MAB Program’s website describes its aim to be a
promotion of sustainable development based on local community efforts and sound science
(UNESCO 2011).
Originally, the biosphere reserve concept was developed in 1974. Then in the UNESCO
General Conference of the Statutory Framework and the Seville Strategy for Biosphere
Reserves substantially revised the concept in 1995 (UNESCO 1996, Price et al. 2010). The
40
key element for MAB’s concept of BRs is the World Network of Biosphere Reserves
(WNBR) – a platform for knowledge sharing, research and monitoring, education and
training, and participatory decision-making (Isacch 2008). As of 2015, the WNBR unites
651 biosphere reserves in 120 countries, including 15 trans-boundary sites (WNBR 2015).
Box 3.2 UNESCO Biosphere Reserves Main Functions and Characteristics (Adopted
from the UNESCO BR webpage)
Biosphere Reserve’s functions: o Conservation function prescribes to preserve cultural and biological diversity and
securing services provided by such diversity.
o Development function requires fostering environmentally and socially sustainable,
as well as culturally appropriate economic and human development.
o Logistic support function entails support for environmental education, training, and
research, demonstration projects, and monitoring related to conservation and
sustainable development issues on local, national and global scales.
Biosphere Reserve’s characteristics:
o Achieving the three interconnected functions: conservation, development and
logistic support;
o Outpacing traditional confined conservation zones, through appropriate zoning
schemes combining core protected areas with zones where sustainable development
is fostered by local dwellers and enterprises with often highly innovative and
participative governance systems;
o Focusing on a multi-stakeholder approach with particular emphasis on the
involvement of local communities in management;
o Fostering dialogue for conflict resolution of natural resource use;
o Integrating cultural and biological diversity, especially the role of traditional
knowledge in ecosystem management;
o Demonstrating sound sustainable development practices and policies based on
research and monitoring;
o Acting as sites of excellence for education and training;
o Participating in the World Network
Biosphere Reserve Zoning
o Core area(s): securely protected sites for conserving biological diversity,
monitoring minimally disturbed ecosystems, and undertaking non-destructive
research and other low-impact uses (such as education). In addition to its
conservation function, the core area contributes to a range of ecosystem services
which, in terms of the development functions, can be calculated in economic terms
(e.g., carbon sequestration, soil stabilization, supply of clean water and air, etc.).
Employment opportunities can also complement conservation goals (e.g.,
environmental education, research, environmental rehabilitation and conservation
measures, recreation and eco-tourism).
o Buffer zone(s): zones, which usually surrounds or adjoins the core areas, and is
41
used for cooperative activities compatible with sound ecological practices, including
environmental education, recreation, ecotourism, and applied and basic research. In
addition to the buffering function related to the core areas, buffer zones can have
their own intrinsic, ‘stand alone’ functions for maintaining anthropogenic,
biological and cultural diversity. They can also have an important connectivity
function in a larger spatial context as they connect biodiversity components within
core areas with those in transition areas.
o Transition area: area with a central function in sustainable development which
may contain a variety of agricultural activities, settlements and other uses and in
which local communities, management agencies, scientists, non-governmental
organizations, cultural groups, economic interests and other stakeholders work
together to manage and sustainably develop the area's resources.
National governments nominate protected areas to obtain the status of UNESCO Biosphere
Reserve and the MAB Secretariat makes decision by weighing a nominated reserve against
a set of criteria identified in the Statutory Framework (UNESCO 1996). MAB requires each
BR to fulfill three complementary and interconnected functions (UNESCO 1996, 2011;
Ishwaran 2008, 2012):
Conservation function prescribes to preserve cultural and biological diversity and
securing services provided by such diversity.
Development function requires to foster environmentally and socially sustainable as well
as culturally appropriate economic and human development
Logistic support function entails support to environmental education, training, and
research, demonstration projects, and monitoring related to conservation and sustainable
development issues on local, national and global scales.
Ishwaran (2008) argued that the BR concept was originated as an alternative to the national
park model and had an explicit aim to make parks and reserves community conscious. That
is why BR concept strived to outpace traditional confined conservation zones by a zoning
scheme that combines core protected areas with sustainable development zones (Ishwaran
42
2012). Physically, each BR is required to contain three zones: one or more core areas, a
buffer zone, and a flexible transition area (also called an area of co-operation and which
includes rehabilitation zone – a heavily damaged area that needs urgent rehabilitation)
(UNESCO 1996, Heinen and Vande Kopple, 2003) (Box 3.2, p.40). Originally the BR
concept envisioned BR zones to be as concentric rings nested in one another, however, in
practice zoning has been implemented differently depending on local conditions and needs
(UNESCO 1996, Isacch 2008).
3.4.1 Ysyk-Köl Biosphere Reserve mandate and zoning
The Ysyk-Köl Biosphere Reserve (YKBR) was established by Resolution #623 of the
Government of the Kyrgyz Republic on September 25, 1998. YKBR successfully received
a UNESCO Biosphere Reserve designation in September 2001 (GTZ 2002, Ter-Ghazaryan
and Heinen 2006, Kojekov 2008). The Biosphere Reserve’s boundaries, mission and
mandate were laid out in the YKBR Statute approved by the Government’s Resolution #40
on January 24, 2000. The YKBR’s mandate is threefold: a) biocultural conservation, b)
promotion of sustainable use of resources and c) ecological education and monitoring
(Table 3.2). The YKBR Statute was developed in congruence with the following
legislative acts pertaining to the YKBR: the Law on Biosphere Territories (June 9, 1999 №
48), the Law on Sustainable Development of Ysyk-Köl Ecological and Economic System
(August 13, 2004 № 115), and the Law on Protected Areas (May 28, 1994 № 1561-XII) (A
comprehensive list of laws constituting Kyrgyzstan’s legislative framework pertaining to
biocultural diversity appears in Appendix 1). The YKBR has become the second UNESCO
BR in Kyrgyzstan (the first being Sary-Chelek Biosphere Reserve (SCBR) designated in
43
1978) (Ter-Ghazaryan and Heinen 2006). The Biosphere Reserve is governed by a
Directorate General and is a departmental unit of the State Agency on Environmental
Protection and Forestry (SAEPF) (Figure 3.1).
YKBR’s zoning scheme is summarized in the Table 3.3. BRs can encompass areas
protected under other local (such as national parks or nature reserves) and international
systems (such as World Heritage or Ramsar sites) (UNESCO 1996). For example, YKBR
encompasses a number of state zapovedniki (nature preserves) as well as Ysyk-Köl Lake,
which is a Ramsar site (Table 3.4).
Table 3.2 YKBR’s mandate according to its Statute (approved by the Government’s
Resolution #40 on January 24, 2000)
Goals
as defined in
Article 1
a) Conservation, rehabilitation and sustainable use of areas with rich natural
and cultural legacy;
b) Fostering long-term sustainable economic and social development of the
areas including use for recreational purposes with a focus on conservation
and rehabilitation of natural resources; and
c) Long-term ecological control, monitoring and research as well as
ecological education and upbringing.
Functions
as defined in
Article 5
a) Conserving diversity on genetic, species, and landscape levels
b) Fostering economic and cultural development of the region and
reconciling nature conservation and environmentally friendly sustainable
development
c) Conducting long-term studies and monitoring of the environment,
making contributions to ecological education of the population, capacity
building of conservation managers, testing and approbation of innovative
technologies and methods for sustainable development
Tasks
as defined in
Article 6
To protect biodiversity and unique ecosystems of the region, including
Ysyk-Köl Lake
To develop and coordinate conservation strategies
To improve a system of long-term monitoring of the environment
To reconcile varying use regimes in different zones and environmentally-
friendly resource use
To promote applied methods of environmentally friendly land use in
traditional livelihood activities
To ensure cooperation among local and national agencies dealing with
natural resources management and planning
To develop and introduce innovative approaches to resource use that also
44
support local, cultural and ethnic specificities of the region
To facilitate participation of local communities and interest groups in the
decision making process pertaining to natural resources management and
economic development
To raise funds and attract investments for environmentally friendly projects
for socio-economic development
To develop measures to encourage conservation and sustainable use of
resource
To develop indicators of sustainability in livelihood practices in buffer and
transition zones
To promote interdisciplinary research with special focus on local problems
including restoration of degraded ecosystems, conservation of soils and
water
To contribute to ecological education of the population and curriculum
development for sustainable development
To provide comprehensive information about YKBR activities to visitors
To build cooperation with other members of the MAB Biosphere Reserve
To mobilize private funds and NGOs to support activities within the YKBR
Governance
and rights
as defined in
Articles 34-
40
The Directorate General is the governing, coordinating and executive body
of the YKBR
YKBR is a legal body which is funded from the republican budget and
other sources
YKBR’s mandate and functions are defined in the Statute approved by the
SAEPF
YKBR has a right to possess and manage its property
YKBR has an Advisory Board, members of which can be Directors of the
State Institutions, local authorities, research organizations and NGOs. The
number of Advisory Board members has to be odd and not fewer than five.
Candidates to the YKBR Advisory Board are named by the Provincial State
Administration with the approval of the SAEPF.
YKBR Advisory Board’s decisions are non-binding.
The YKBR Advisory Board reviews YKBR reports and gives
recommendations on YKBR’s strategic development.
Table 3.3 YKBR’s current zoning scheme
Zones Total area Protected
ecosystems
Core
areas
1) 19,842 ha. (Core areas of the Issyk-Kul State
Reserve)
Wetlands and coastal
ecosystems
2) 72,080 ha. (Core area of Sarychat-Ertash State
Reserve)
Syrt zone (high
mountain tundra)
3) 8,600 ha. (Core area of Karakol State Park) Forest ecosystems
on mountain slopes
45
4) 59 ha. (An area on the Teskey Ala-Too range
adjacent to Sarychat-Ertash State Reserve)
Subalpine, alpine
and nival ecosystems
Buffer
zone
3,501,516 ha, which covers: Protective Area of the
Issyk-Kul State Reserve, excluding human
settlements, resorts, and croplands; Issyk-Kul Lake
basin, excluding one kilometer near-shore waters near
ports and recreational territories; State forests on the
Teskey and Kungei Ala-Too Ranges as well as State
Reserve lands above the state forests; all lands
southeast of Teskey Ala-Too Range up to the state
border, excluding settlements, industry areas, energy
and mineral areas.
Coastal, marine,
semi-desert,
mountain-steppe,
forest, alpine,
subalpine, nival
ecosystems
Transitio
n area
688,540 ha, which covers: agricultural lands and
industrial sites, lands occupied by roads and other
infrastructure, settlements, recreational areas, and
territories not identified as buffer zone.
Ecosystems altered
by human use
Rehabilita
tion zone
Areas such as mines, tailing sites, construction sites,
dumps, which need regeneration and remediation
measures
No data
Table 3.4 Protected areas within the YKBR (Adapted from Baetov 2006)
Name, Area (ha) and
Year founded
Purpose Flora and fauna
Issyk-Kul National
Preserve
(19,100)
1948
Protection of winter
habitat, nesting
grounds, stopover
for waterfowl and
shore birds
Whooper swan, mute swan, flamingo,
white heron, white-tailed duck, Eurasian
spoonbill
Sarychat-Ertach
National Preserve
(135,400)
1995
Protection of
ecosystems, and
rare/endangered
species
Arkhar, Marco Polo sheep, snow leopard,
Pallas’s cat, golden eagle, mountain turkey,
saker falcon, Lammergeier (bearded
vulture)
Karakol National Park
(38,256)
1997
Preservation of
ecosystems unique
to Karakol Gorge
Pine, fir, larch, birch, roe deer, ibex, snow
leopard, bear, Siberian deer, lynx, golden
eagle, kumai, saker falcon, Lammergeier
Tyup, Jeti-Oguz,
Chon –Jargylchak,
Ken-Suu and Ak-Suu
Game Reserves
(96,155), 1958 - 1989
Preservation of
alpine ecosystems,
wild game and rare
species
Snow leopard, Roe deer, Siberian deer,
wild boar, ibex, Marco Polo sheep, Pallas’s
cat, marten, bear, lynx, black grouse,
mountain turkey, Lammergeier, black
vulture, grouse and sparrowhawk
46
The literature on the YKBR is scarce. Kojekov (2008) has discussed the impact of global
environmental challenges such as climate change on the Reserve. Ter-Ghazaryan and
Heinen (2006) examined the management structure and concluded that Soviet conservation
paradigm is still dominant in conservation practices. Heinen et al. (2001) assessed the
capacity of government institutions to enforce and implement international agreements on
conservation (such as CBD, Ramsar) and concluded that institutional capacity and
infrastructure for enforcement is lacking. Wunderlich et al. (2014) analyzed possibilities for
expanding the core area of the YKBR and proposed a wildlife matrix zones as an
innovative approach for conservation. Thus, there is an evident gap in literature pertaining
to YKBR’s current governance arrangements and biocultural conservation approaches.
State Agency on Environmental Protection and Forestry
Department of Forest Ecosystems and Strictly Protected Areas
State Regulatory Center for Environmental Protection and
Ecological Security
Department of Forest and Hunting Planning
Republican and Local Funds for Environmental Protection and
Development of Forestry
Department of Sustainable Use of Natural Resources
Directorate General of the YKBR
Territorial Management Offices on Environmental Protection
State Nature Preserves, National Parks and Forestry Stations and
Forestry Farms
Figure 3.1 YKBR’s place within the institutional structure of the State
Agency on Environmental Protection and Forestry
47
CHAPTER 4. SACRED SITES: COMMUNITY CONSERVED AREAS IN THE
YSYK-KÖL BIOSPHERE RESERVE1
4.1 Introduction
This chapter is built around Objective 1 to investigate what kinds of sacred sites exist in
Ysyk-Köl Biosphere Reserve (YKBR) and whether they are being employed in
existing governance and conservation strategies of the YKBR. To achieve Objective 1, the
research sought answers to such questions as: what causes sacred sites in Ysyk-Köl to be
conserved by local communities? How sacred sites are governed and managed by local
communities? Do current governance approaches in the YKBR take into account sacred
sites when defining and implementing conservation strategies?
This chapter uses Aitpaeva’s (2013) definition of sacred sites as ‘areas of land and bodies
of water, as well as constructions and items, which are spiritually and/or religiously
meaningful for local people and where sacral practices are performed.’ Sacred sites are
encountered in various cultures around the world (Ramakrishnan et al. 1998) and are
related to worldviews, beliefs and indigenous knowledge (Aitpaeva et al. 2009, Berkes
2012).
Sacred sites perform functions (cultural and spiritual, educational, ecological, economic
and social) that contribute to biocultural conservation (Verschuuren et al. 2010). In many
cultures sacred sites manifest and forge sacred feelings toward nature. Cultures based on
spiritualty that view nature as sacred have developed more sustainable resource use models
than cultures based on spirituality that treats nature as an object (Verschuuren et al. 2010).
1 A version of this chapter was accepted for publication in: Asian Sacred Natural Sites: An Ancient Asian
Philosophy and Practice with Fundamental Significance to Protected Areas (B. Verschuuren, editor)
Routledge, London and New York
48
Sacred sites are areas conserved by local communities (Aitpaeva 2013) and fit into a
broader concept of Indigenous and Community Conserved Areas (ICCAs), which includes
bio-cultural heritage sites, community reserves, indigenous protected areas, community
forests, and sacred groves (Borrini et al. 2004, Oviedo 2006, TILCEPA 2008). Local
community-based conservation is seen to contribute to formal conservation objectives and
goals in different parts of the world (ICCA Consortium 2015). The concept of ICCAs
acknowledges a plurality of conservation practices, including indigenous conservation-
through-use practices (Berkes 2007, 2009), sacred sites and species protection through
taboo system (Premauer 2013), and conservation for other cultural/spiritual reasons (Posey
1999, Colding and Folke 2001, Kothari 2006). This chapter describes what leads sacred
sites to be conserved by local communities in the YKBR, what kinds of sacred sites exist
and whether sacred sites are being employed in existing governance and conservation
strategies in the YKBR.
4.2 Results: What kind of sacred sites are there in the Ysyk-Köl Biosphere
Reserve?
Sacred sites in the YKBR are diverse biologically and geologically and include various
species of trees and bushes, bodies of water (springs, ponds, glaciers, and lakes), rock
formations (cliffs, mountains, hills) and entire ecosystems. Document analysis of existing
data on sacred sites (Aitpaeva 2009) allowed identifying what kind of biophysical elements
are there on sacred sites in Ysyk-Köl region. Based on that analysis a number of sacred
sites have been visited during the field study. I attempted to visit at least one sacred site that
contained a particular biophysical element (Table 4.1). Traditional practitioners explain the
49
diversity of sacred sites with the belief that every element of nature has its ‘special’ sacred
representative:
Everyone knows a proverb saying that ‘every seventh [one] is Khidyr.’
This proverb reflects folk wisdom that all beings in this world have
their representatives with special capacities. For example, we may
roughly say that six poplars may be just regular poplars but the
seventh one would be ‘special’, i.e., sacred. And it applies to
everything – to trees, springs, animals, and people (Siezdbek moldo, a
guardian of Kochkor-Ata sacred site, pers. comm., 2014).
Table 4.1 Diversity of sacred sites in the YKBR with respect to biophysical elements
perceived as sacred
Biophysical elements of
sacred sites1
Number2 Example
3
Vegetation apple tree 3 Alma [apple] mazary, a site with a very old,
single apple tree
apricot tree 10 Oruk [apricot] mazar, a big, old apricot tree
grows on a hill. There is no vegetation
around.
birch tree 1 Kyzyl-Jar [red cliff], a birch tree has grown
on the burial place of a sheyit, an innocently
killed person.
brushwood
shrubs and
bushes
4 Bala [child’s] mazar is part of bigger sacred
site called Chungkur-Bulak [spring in the
hole].
dog rose bush 1 Chong-Kyzyl-Suu [big red water], a dog rose
bush is located near the entrance to the
Jyluu-Suu [Warm water] sanatorium (health
spa)
fir tree 6 Oluya Zaur Ata [oluya Zaur father] is a big
fir tree with three intertwined trunks.
Hawthorn 6 Mai-Bulak [oil spring] consist of a hawthorn
tree, a boulder and a spring. Local people
believe that the guardian-spirit of local land
lives there.
1 This column is created based on document analysis of existing qualitative data on sacred sites in the Ysyk-
Köl area (Aitpaeva 2009). The survey of sacred sites conducted by Aigine served as a sampling pool for the
sites I visited during this study. 2 The number of sacred sites is calculated based on participant observation, interviews and analysis of existing
qualitative data 3 Sacred sites visited or seen during the fieldwork. The site marked with an asterisk (*) was not visited. The
description is adopted from (Aitpaeva 2009)
50
juniper bushes
and trees
7 Archaluu [place with juniper] has juniper
bushes and trees that grow in a hilly terrain
with no other vegetation around it. Mostly
people who want to have a child come for a
pilgrimage.
mountain ash tree 4 Aziz [a respectful term for snake] is a
mountain ash tree with prayer flags tied to it.
A white snake is believed to be the guardian-
spirit of the place.
Persian olive 1 Jiide, the site, has an old silver berry tree,
also known as Persian olive or oleaster,
locally called jiide.
pine tree 1 Altyn-Bulak [golden spring] is a pine tree
with a warm spring next to it*.
poplar (various
species)
26 Ak-Terek [white poplar] consists of six
poplars and a spring. The poplars have
grown bending into each other and they look
like a yurt. The spring starts a little higher
than the trees and flows to them.
rowan tree 1 Sary-Bulung [yellow gulf] is the name of the
village where a sacred rowan tree and a
spring are located.
sea-buckthorn
bushes
3 Kessengir [mountain ridge covered with tall
grass] consists of sea-buckthorn bushes and a
spring at the beginning of the Kes-Senir
canyon.
walnut tree 1 Talip-Akun-Ata [father Talip Akun] consists
of a walnut and a willow tree. It was named
after a very wise and skilful person who built
a school in olden days.
willow (various
species)
28 Mazar Bulak [mazar spring] is a cluster of
old willow trees and a spring. According to
local beliefs, this is one of the oldest sacred
sites.
Water
bodies
lakes 2 Tuzduu-Suu [salty water] is a small salty
lake whose waters are known to cure skin
diseases.
ponds 3 Bakaluu-Kol [frog lake] is a pond which
used to be a big lake according to folk
history. Sacred white frogs were believed to
inhabit this lake.
springs 42 Manjyly-Ata [father Manjyly] contains seven
springs, each of which has distinct kasiet [a
spiritual power].
Geological rocks and cliffs 3 Jeti-Oguz [seven oxen], a red limestone
51
formations formation that resembles seven oxen.
hills 2 Kindik-Dobo [belly button hill] is a sacred
hill with a shape resembling a belly-button.
mountains 2 Han-Tengir [Tengir is the name of the
Creator] is a tall mountain with a sharp peak
about 7000 meters high.
salt formation 1 Tuz [salt] is a hole with salt crystals in it.
stone 13 Tamga-Tash [stamp boulder] is a boulder
with natural marks resembling a stamp (seal)
Ecosystems grove ecosystem 1 Kamanduu-Kol [wild boar lake] is a grove
with different kinds of trees and shrubs;
springs come out from under the roots of
some of the trees.
alpine ecosystem 2 Tastar-Ata [father Tastar] is a valley named
after a mountain with the same name. Alpine
summer pastures are located at the higher
elevations.
lake ecosystem 1 Ysyk- Köl Lake, the second largest high
altitude lake in the world, is considered a
sacred site as a whole.
Human
made
mausoleums 7 Karga-Ake is a recently built mausoleum for
a historical figure known for his wisdom and
justice.
tombs/graveyards 12 Karakol-Ata [Father Karakol] comprises a
tomb, three yellow willow trees, a poplar tree
and a spring. This complex is located in a
Muslim cemetery.
Sacred sites in the YKBR vary in size: some contain an individual biophysical element
such as Er-Tabyldy-Tash [lit. a boulder of Er-Tabyldy] sacred site in Jeti-Oguz district,
whereas others sacred sites consist of several biophysical elements. For example,
Chungkur-Bulak sacred site located near Oy-Bulak village consists of willow and poplar
trees, a couple of salt-water springs and brushwood shrubs. Some sacred sites in YKBR are
‘purely’ natural sites, whereas some include human-made structures. For example, Mazar-
Bulak sacred site near Kara-Oi village consists of willow trees, a spring and a little
housekeeping warehouse where pilgrims can prepare their food.
52
Fig
ure
4.1
Red
dots
sh
ow
ap
pro
xim
ate
loca
tion
of
sacr
ed s
ites
wit
hin
th
e Y
KB
R
N
53
Most of the sacred sites in the YKBR seem to be located in the valley, not too far away
from the villages and settlements. Sacred sites in YKBR were not previously mapped. I
marked approximate location of sacred sites in the YKBR (Figure 4.1) based on participant
observation, interviews and existing descriptive qualitative data (Aitpaeva 2009).
The exact location of sacred sites is not provided for ethical reasons. Indeed, many
informants pointed out that information on exact location of sacred sites should not be
published in open source because it may jeopardize sacred sites. Question about showing
the exact location of sacred sites and other issues related to ‘indigenous ethics’ for
conducting a research on sacred sites were discussed during the Group Discussion on
October 1 (see Table 2.4).
Local people know where their sacred sites are. If there are pilgrims
looking for a sacred site, they can always ask local people to show the
way. If the local person does not know where exactly the sacred site
is, he or she will know for sure a person in the village who knows
where the sacred site is. If the exact location of sacred sites is
available on Internet, then outsiders can go directly to the sacred sites.
Who can guarantee that they will go there with good intentions?
(Traditional practitioner, field notes, 2014).
It should be noted that the provided map does not show all sacred sites existing in the
YKBR. Due to the scope and timeframe of the study, and vast territories of the YKBR, I
was not able to visit all villages and ask people about their sacred sites. It is quite possible
that there are some sacred sites in the ‘blank’ areas on the map.
There are some informal rules of visiting sacred sites. These rules in Ysyk-Köl region do
not differ from the rules accepted in other regions of Kyrgyzstan (Kadyrbek Jakypov,
guardian of Manjyly-Ata sacred site) and can be distilled to several requirements and
taboos. Before coming to a sacred site and while being on a sacred site, a pilgrim should:
54
o Have a good intent, respect and believe in the sanctity of a sacred site
o Conduct an ablution before visiting a sacred site
o Bring some ritual food, depending on the pilgrim’s economic well-being
o Keep the sacred site clean and take care of sacred places as far as opportunities
permit
o Conduct necessary rituals and ceremonies: recite the Quran, make wishes, pray, etc.
o Make a donation (as much as one can depending on his/her financial situation) if
there is charity box
Taboos for visitors of sacred sites:
o Polluting and littering a sacred site
o Causing damage to a sacred site’s biophysical elements (e.g., cutting the branches
of the trees, or bushes)
o Taking away anything that belongs to the sacred site (e.g., pilgrims leave some
dishes and utensils near a sacred site so that other pilgrims can use them)
o Doing ‘dirty’ things such as drinking alcohol, smoking, uttering swear words,
having sexual intercourse, urinating and defecating
o Shooting firearms
o Coming with uncovered head; all intimate parts of the body should be covered
o Visiting sacred sites during one’s menstrual cycle
o Tying votive rags to branches of trees and bushes on sacred sites (because this
causes damage to the trees and bushes by choking them)
Plate 11. Manjyly-Ata sacred site (Credit: Aigine)
55
Plate 12. Kamanduu-Köl sacred site
Plate 13. Karakol-Ata sacred site
56
Sacred sites have a body of traditional knowledge associated with them. This includes
traditional knowledge about the sacred sites per se, oral history of the surrounding area and
communities; knowledge about spirits, people, animals, and plants as well as medicinal
properties of certain plants, springs, and soil, knowledge about indigenous worldviews and
philosophies. Sacred sites contain knowledge that connects local people to the land
(Traditional practitioner, pers. comm., 2014).
Sacred sites have a prominent belief component. Beliefs regarding sacred sites shape a
great deal of the behavior and perceptions of pilgrims who visit sacred sites. For example, it
is believed that the sacredness of a site is manifested by its kasiet - special powers such as
curing illnesses both spiritual and physical, bringing luck, repelling misfortunes, and easing
people’s burdens. The kasiet of a sacred site is associated with its guardian spirit, which is
called ee (lit. owner of the site).
Kasiet, i.e., special powers, of a site may define pilgrims’ incentives for visiting a certain
sacred site. There is a traditional saying that explains the main purpose of visiting certain
sacred sites: ‘If you are longing for a child, go to Manjyly-Ata; if you are longing for
livestock, go to Cholpon-Ata; if you are longing for a throne (i.e., power) go to Kochkor
Ata; if you are longing for health, go to Ysyk-Ata’ (Aitpaeva 2009, Usubalieva-Grishchuk,
2012). Although this saying is well-known and generally accepted, it is not followed to the
letter. Pilgrims believe that one can go to a sacred site with any wish and ask for whatever
one needs. Pilgrims say that the ‘success’ of the pilgrimage depends on the pilgrim’s intent
and ability to get connected to a sacred site. If a pilgrim is connected, then he/she can ask
57
for various things such as well-being, happiness, spiritual growth, developing some
exceptional abilities and/or talents at the same sacred site (Table 4.2).
Table 4.2 Some of the main reasons why local people visit particular sacred sites1
Purpose of visiting sacred
sites
Example from Ysyk-Köl region
Wellness/health Pilgrims often come to the Karakol-Ata sacred site and pray
for wellness and health.
Fertility related Women and couples wishing to have children visit Archabai
(aka Archaluu) sacred site. Some of them bring cradles with
them and conduct certain rituals.
Riches, wealth-related,
livestock
Cholpon-Ata is a pir2 for sheep and that is why it is generally
considered to be a sacred site where people ask for wealth of
different kinds.
Power/career Er-Tabyldy is named after the 18-19th century hero who
fought for the Kyrgyz people.
Knowledge and wisdom Kalygul-Oluya is named after a historical figure well-known
as an oracle and for his wisdom.
Finding and accepting
one’s spiritual call (kasiet)
Bugu-Ene mazary is a site named after a mother deer that
serves to provide for a person’s spiritual call for healing,
fortune telling, Manas reciting, etc.
1 This table is composed based on the interviewees responses
2 Pir is a guardian-spirit of a person, place or animal (Aitpaeva 2013, p. 235).
Plate 14. Ak-chachuu ritual on the Ysyk-Köl Lake (Credit Aigine)
58
It is also believed that some sacred sites are interconnected and form networks of various
sizes. Some networks connect sacred sites in one region; there are some country-wide
networks, and all the sacred sites in the world are connected to each other and form ‘sacred
whorls of the Earth’ (Kubanychbek Tezekbaev, traditional practitioner, pers.comm, 2014).
Interconnected sacred sites are said to be linked with one another by common root or an
‘umbilical cord.’ In some networks, sacred sites are referred to as ‘brothers and sisters’ to
one another (Aitpaeva, pers.comm., 2014).
Practices performed on sacred sites include various rituals related to healing, the well-
being of an individual or a community, and repelling misfortunes. Some of the rituals are
conducted individually, and some are done as a group (Table 4.3). For example, tuloo ritual
is often conducted to ask for rain during the draught or dry season so that crops give rich
yields. Thus, sacred sites have an important connection to local people’s livelihoods.
Plate 15. Tuloo ritual (Credit Aigine)
59
Table 4.3 Some rituals conducted on sacred sites by individuals and communities1
Name of the ritual Description
English
transliteration
Literal
translation
Aidar (Niyaz)
chach aluu
Cutting
Aidar
(Niyaz) hair
Aidar chach is a lock of hair, which is left on the long-
desired baby’s head after the first haircut to assure well-
being and protection of the baby. The ritual of aidar chach
is usually conducted at a sacred site by healers or sacred
site guardians.
Ak chachuu Scattering
the white
Traditionally, this is a ritual of pouring out something
white such as milk, yogurt, or flour to appease, show
respect, and drive snakes out of person’s house, garden, or
any other place. Sometimes it is also used to greet and
show respect to sacred site guardian spirits.
Aktykty
moyunga aluu
Accepting
whiteness
This is a ritual of person’s accepting his/her spiritual
mission such as healing (physical and/or psychological
conditions), fortune telling, and/or spiritual channeling. The
form and content of this ritual varies from case to case,
although frequently it is conducted at sacred sites.
Dem saluu Inserting
energy
This healing ritual consists of reciting duba, prayers and
spells, which help to feed additional energy to the person in
need.
Jar saluu Singing Jar This is a ritual of singing/reciting/chanting words from the
Quran and inviting spirits who support you.
Jeti tokoch Seven flat
breads
Tokoch is a type of round fried or baked bread. It is usually
prepared by pilgrims before visiting sacred sites. This ritual
is done to honor the guardian spirit of a sacred site and
other invisible forces.
Kudai tamak God’s sake
food (Kudai
is a word
used for
God in
Kyrgyz
language)
This is a sacrifice ritual of gratitude to God conducted by a
group of people such as family, neighbors, villagers,
pilgrims and others. Depending on the occasion and the
wealth of the group, a goat, a sheep, a cow, or a horse is
sacrificed; food is prepared and all participants share it.
Some communities conduct this ritual in spring asking the
Creator for good weather and a plentiful harvest, as well as
in the fall to thank for the Creator for the harvest. When a
couple gives birth to a child after conducting a pilgrimage
to a sacred site, a family usually performs the kudai tamak
ritual at that sacred site.
Kurmandykka
chaluu
Sacrifice This is a ritual of sacrificing livestock (such as sheep, goat,
cattle, or horse) for the sake the Creator. The sacrifice is
considered a ritual on its own right; however, often it
1 This table is created based on the information gathered at the focus group discussion on October 26 (see
Table 2.4)
60
becomes part of other rituals such as tuloo or kudai tamak.
The ritual of sacrifice is the main purpose of some Muslim
holidays such as Kurman Ait (Eid al-Adha).
Sham jaguu Lighting a
candle
Sham is a ritual hand-made candle. A wisp of cotton is
soaked in plant oil or animal fat and is usually wrapped
around a dry reed stalk. Some candles are made without
stalks. Sham jaguu is a ritual of lighting these candles; it
can be conducted both at home and on a sacred site. The
ritual may be done for various purposes such as to show
respect to the sacred sites’ guardian spirits, to pray, and to
receive spiritual information from them in memory of the
departed. This ritual is outlawed by the followers of
radicalized Islam and at some sacred sites related to Islam it
is prohibited.
Tilek kyluu Making a
wish
It is a ritual of articulating a wish (within the heart or aloud,
on one’s own or as part of a group). Making a wish is one
of the key elements of pilgrimage to a sacred site.
Tuloo Sacrifice This sacrifice ritual is dedicated to a particular occasion. It
is done to divert bad luck, overcome misfortunes, or
safeguard individual or collective well-being. Livestock
such as sheep, goats, cattle, and horse as well as poultry are
acceptable sacrificial offerings.
Zikir chaluu Chanting
Zikr
Zikr is an Islamic ritual of reciting the names of Allah and
glorifying his greatness, qualities, and omnipotence. This ritual
is a part of other healing rituals.
Besides being a place for conducting livelihood-related rituals, sacred sites (may) serve as
an additional source of income for local communities. Some traditional practitioners and
local people have been promoting and the idea of developing tourism to sacred sites. For
example, a local community in Kara-Oy village developed a project to protect a local
sacred site, which was supported by the Small Grant Program of Global Ecological Fund
(SGP GEF).
Sacred sites are places of cultural significance to local people. No
grazing is allowed there. Local people have a special attitude to those
sites and try to conserve them. However, if there is no fence around
the site, grazing livestock can come in and trample the site. With the
support of SGP, the local community put up a fence around this sacred
site, and built environmentally friendly facilities nearby so that
pilgrims and tourists could cook their food, and wash their hands and
dishes. With our help the local community put up a solar panel, and
61
built an environmentally friendly lavatory. Thus, this project fostered
ecotourism and contributed to local community’s income in addition
to the main goal of the project, which was biodiversity conservation of
a culturally important site. The SGP does not support sacred sites per
se, but in cases where biodiversity conservation goals match cultural
goals, SGP supports those projects. (Evgenia Postnova, National
Coordinator of SGP GEF in Kyrgyzstan, pers. comm. 2014)
I have heard three reasons that traditional practitioners use to support tourism on sacred
sites: a) a belief that sacred sites’ kasiet increases as more people visit and revere them b) a
belief that tourism can educate people about sacred sites and c) the perception of sacred
sites as global commons. The following three quotes best illustrate those points:
Pilgrims come to Manjyly-Ata from all over the country. Also tourists
that visit Ysyk-Köl come to see Manjyly-Ata. If there are more
pilgrims, they can buy sheep for sacrifice from local villagers. Some
can buy wood from locals to cook the meat. This all is a good
contribution to local people’s livelihoods (Kadyrbek Jakypov,
guardian of Manjyly-Ata sacred site).
Tourism to sacred sites can be a great educational and awareness
raising tool. Tourists who come to sacred sites will learn the history of
sacred sites, the rules of behavior on sacred sites, feel the sanctity of
nature (Local villager, pers. comm., 2014).
Powerful sacred sites, which we have here in Kyrgyzstan, were given
to us by God to take care of. It was not given only to the people of
Kyrgyzstan. It is entire humanity’s heritage just like Mount Kailash in
Tibet or Mount Ararat in Arabia (Traditional practitioner, field notes,
2014).
However, bringing tourism to sacred sites remains a controversial issue. Opponents of
promoting tourism are concerned that a ‘touristic’ approach to sacred sites may lead to
kasiet kachuu, i.e., the loss of the sites’ sanctity, because tourists may not follow all the
rules and taboos of conducting a pilgrimage. Some practitioners say that although pilgrims
and tourists may be very similar from outside, the difference lies inside – that is, in the
intent for visiting a sacred site. While pilgrims visit sacred sites with pure intentions and
with a need for something, tourists visit them as entertainment or just as a site of interest.
62
Depending on the community, the majority of inhabitants may support or oppose the idea
of promoting tourism to sacred sites. Some local believe that such tourism may boost local
economies; other locals believe that profit-making is incompatible with sacredness. It is
also worth mentioning that there are some religious/spiritual movements that are built
around organized pilgrimage to sacred sites (Box 4.1).
Box 4.1 Ata-Jolu movement and pilgrimage to sacred sites (Source: Aigine archives)
Ata-Jolu (Ата жолу, lit. Father’s path) is a religious and cultural movement which
combines Islamic practice and traditional folk beliefs such as respect for the spirits of
ancestors. Originating in Kazakhstan (in 1996, by Kuul Kytyral Tarybaev), this movement
has spread to Kyrgyzstan and some parts of Russia.
Members of Ata-Jolu establish Ordos (centers), that is centers, where they gather together
to conduct various rituals including healing ceremonies, spiritual learning, etc. (Tacea
2011). Members of the movement mentioned that there are Ordos in all regions of
Kyrgyzstan. Every Ordo has a leader who conducts ceremonies. The male leaders hold the
title of shumkar (lit. falcon), whereas female leaders are called ak-kuu (lit. white swan).
Other members of the Ordo are called shakirt (lit. apprentice).
One of the pivotal elements of this movement is pilgrimage to sacred sites. According to
Ata-Jolu practitioners, people’s physical illnesses, misfortunes and difficulties in life come
from not accepting a personal kasiet, which can be understood as special power, capacity,
or talent. Often this kasiet is believed to be transmitted from forefathers and a person needs
to accept it by conducting pilgrimages to ancestors’ sacred sites and honoring their spirits.
To support their views, practitioners frequently refer to a Kyrgyz proverb stating that unless
the spirits of the deceased are content, the living will not be either.
Almost every week, mostly the on weekend, members of Ordos led by their leaders visit
several sacred sites and conduct prayers, healing rituals and ceremonies there. Most people
come to the Ordos due to psychological or physical problems in their lives such as illness,
alcoholism, dissatisfaction with life, lack of happiness, etc. Depending on health or social
problems, members of the Ordos are told by Ordo leaders (i.e., ak-kuus or shumkars) to
visit certain sacred sites and conduct certain rituals. Ordo members share the expense of
going to sacred sites (mainly money to hire a van and to buy products for ritual food).
Visiting local (and smaller) sacred sites is considered a small pilgrimage, whereas
pilgrimages to larger, well-known sacred sites is considered a ‘great pilgrimage’ (Tacea
2011). The Turkestan area of southern Kazakhstan is considered to be a famous sacred
place for great pilgrimages because the tombs of 41 saints are believed to be there. Some
organize pilgrimage ‘tours’ to this area on a regular basis.
63
Ordo members are most active in (re)establishing sacred sites. Ordo leaders receive bata (a
message from ancestors’ spirits) about forgotten sacred sites. Upon receiving a message,
people are spiritually obligated to treat a certain site as sacred. Ata-Jolu movement remains
understudied from the academic perspective. Some materials can be found in Aigine’s
website and a book on sacred sites of the Chui province.
Sacred sites have a traditional institution of guardians, namely people who voluntarily
take care of sacred sites. Sacred site guardians/custodians (called karoolchu or shaiyk in
Kyrgyz) take up this responsibility of looking after particular sacred sites as a spiritual
calling (Aitpaeva 2009). Some sacred site guardians are elected by communities to look
after a particular site. The sacred site guardian’s main responsibilities are: a) looking after a
sacred site, which entails preserving the site from damage, and keeping it clean and
respected b) informing pilgrims about the kasiet of the sacred site and the rules to be
Plate 16. Countrywide meeting of sacred site guardians and traditional practitioners, Bishkek, October 2014
64
followed, and c) reciting verses from the Quran and assisting pilgrims with conducting
rituals.
It should be noted that at the time of a study, only few sacred sites in the YKBR had
‘permanent’ guardians. The majority of sacred sites are taken care of by pilgrims who visit
those sites, because it is a responsibility of every visitor to show respect and care about
sacred sites (Traditional practitioner, pers. comm. 2014).
4.2.1 Are sacred sites employed in formal conservation within the Biosphere Reserve?
Sacred sites are not recognized and employed in formal conservation strategies in the
YKBR despite the fact that some core elements of the Biosphere Reserve are considered
sacred by local communities. For example, Ysyk-Köl Lake, which is one of the core
Plate 17. Although not a recognized guardian of this sacred site, the traditional practitioner comes to
Mazar-Bulak to conduct rituals and look after the place
65
elements of the Biosphere Reserve, is considered sacred (Box 4.2). Its unique
characteristics such as size (it is the largest high altitude lake in Central Asia), temperature
(it is warm and does not freeze in the winter), and a great number of tributary rivers with no
outflowing rivers, make the Lake mysterious and sacred for local people.
Look at the lake. It is a unique place, it is alive. There is no similar
place elsewhere nearby. Kyrgyzstan is surrounded by deserts. If we
did not have Ysyk-Köl Lake, it would have been a desert here too.
(Kubanychbek Tezekbaev, traditional practitioner, pers. comm.,
2014)
Ysyk-Köl Lake is the ball of the universe’s eye and it was given to
us to preserve it as such. The lake has almost the same temperature
around the year. It neither freezes in winter nor gets too warm in
summer. So many rivers flow into it and none flows out. It means
that all ‘yrysky and kut,’ the well-being that comes into our area,
stays here and nurtures people. (Azim Jakshylykova, a traditional
practitioner, pers. comm. 2014)
Box 4.2 Legend about Ysyk-Köl Lake
Here is one of the folk legends about Ysyk-Köl Lake: back in olden times, there was a
sacred pure spring where the lake is now. The entire population of a city would drink water
from this spring. One day, a young woman came to the spring and washed her little child’s
diapers in that sacred spring. Just as a proverb says that ‘a small ball of sheep dung spoils a
bag of butter’, the inappropriate behavior of one woman brought retaliation to the whole
city. On that night the spring started expanding and kept enlarging until it covered the entire
city under its waters, and became the lake we know now. Because people were crying
during the flood, the lake became salty. And now, there are many people who are polluting
the lake, littering its shores, selling the lake for money. If people continue maltreating the
sacred lake like this, it will expand again and drown all the villages and towns around it.
We are lucky that the lake is still capable of cleaning itself from all the mess we are causing
to it (Azim Jakshylykova, a traditional practitioner, pers. comm. 2014).
Khan Tengir State Nature Park, which will be created within the YKBR by 2017 (SAEPF
2013), is another of sacred site becoming a core element of a PA. Khan Tengir Peak is a
sacred mountain; however, its sacredness (i.e., spiritual significance for local communities)
is not being taken into account in the process of establishing of the new park.
66
The study showed that the vast majority of conservation managers are not aware of any
examples of local community-based conservation. However, three conservation managers
out of 23 interviewed mentioned that local communities conserve areas, which are
considered sacred:
There are some places which are preserved and respected by local
communities. For example, local people preserve Archaluu-mazar
because locals respect it. People say that back in the day a few persons
tried to cut down some of Arachaluu mazar’s tree branches. Not long
after that, one of those people died and the other one got seriously ill.
After that no one ever tried to do harm to the place and people
preserve it as an apple of the eye. People go for a pilgrimage to
Archaluu-mazar and ask for children, and for healing from deseases. I
suppose many people’s wishes came true and that is why people still
go there. On one occasion people from outside of this area came and
asked me whether I can show them the way to Archaluu-mazar. I
agreed and when I took them there, I saw a herd of wild goats on that
sacred site. There were a few she-goats with kids and one male goat in
the flock. Nobody hunts them when goats are on sacred land
(Conservation manager, pers. comm., 2014).
4.3 Discussion: What makes sacred sites be conserved by local
communities?
I employ the SES lens to understand what makes sacred sites be conserved by local
communities. The notions of scale, drivers, worldviews and feedback in linked SES provide
some valuable insights. Scale-wise, an individual sacred site represents local level
conservation (Aitpaeva 2013). At the same time, traditional knowledge of local people
claim that sacred sites are connected into regional, country-wide and global networks,
which allows understanding sacred sites as truly international and global conservation
effort.
The study identified the main drivers that foster community-based conservation of sacred
sites: a) sacred sites ‘peculiar’, b) sacred sites are linked to individuals’ and communities’
67
well-being c) sacred sites are ‘dynamic’ phenomena, and d) sacred sites are run as
commons via traditional social institutions, rules and taboos. These drivers are deeply
rooted in local worldviews. Indeed, SES approach highlights the importance of
understanding worldviews in conservation practices (Berkes et al. 2003). I claim that
combination of these four drivers results in sacred sites being preserved by local
communities.
Indeed, peculiarity of sacred sites is often seen as a manifestation of the sacredness of a
site. That peculiar quality can be its unusual location and properties such as shape, color,
and age. For example, some trees which are considered sacred are located in places where
trees do not usually grow. Springs which are regarded sacred may be located in very dry
areas and may have some unique properties such as saltiness, color, taste, or smell.
There is an ancient sacred site, which has been sacred since the
time of our great ancestors. It is called Archaluu [a place with a lot
of juniper] and is located nearby Ak-Olong village. The sacred site
is surrounded by deserted hills, there is no water, no grass or
bushes grow in that area, let alone trees. One can see the
sacredness of a place in the fact that a juniper tree grows in that
place, even though in a place with such conditions junipers cannot
usually grow (Local villager, pers. comm., 2014).
May-Bulak [lit. Oily Spring] is a sacred spring. The spring flows
out under a big boulder and there are mountain ash and hawthorn
trees growing nearby. The guardian spirit of surrounding lands
dwells on this sacred site. Water of May-Bulak is soft and oily,
hence the name (Local villager, pers. comm., 2014).
The notion of kasiet kachuu [lit. escape of sacredness] makes sacred sites dynamic
phenomena, which influences local people’s perception of the sacred sites. The major
implication of the kasiet kachuu concept is that people should respect, conserve and use
sacred sites with due care to keep the sacredness of the place. Thus, the belief that
68
sacredness may move to other place represents a feedback loop which motivates local
communities to preserve sacred sites.
The body of traditional knowledge, rules, beliefs, practices and taboos rooted in local
worldviews directly contribute to the conservation of sacred sites. For example, one of the
main rules of visiting sacred sites is to ‘keep the sacred site clean and take care of sacred
places as far as opportunities permit.’ There are also strict taboos such as prohibition for
‘polluting and littering a sacred site’ and ‘causing damage to a sacred site’s biophysical
elements (e.g., cutting the branches of the trees, bushes).’ Similar to sacred sites in other
parts of the world (Premauer and Berkes 2012, Verschuuren et al. 2010), violations of rules
and taboos are believed to have negative consequences (such as illness, misfortune or
death) for the violator.
Traditional knowledge and worldview shapes the local communities behavior on sacred
sites and makes the latter to be run as commons. Common-pool resources (or simply
commons) are ‘natural and human-constructed resources in which: a) exclusion of
beneficiaries through physical and institutional means is especially costly, and b)
exploitation by one user reduces resource availability for others’ (Ostrom et al. 1999, p.
278)
Sacred sites combine a biophysical element such as a tree, spring, rock and others as well as
cultural elements such as rules, traditional knowledge, beliefs, practices and institutions.
Sacred sites are believed to exist in two dimensions – the physical world as well as kayip
duino, the invisible world. Sacred sites with all their elements and dimensions are perceived
by local people as part of kyrgyzchylyk – ‘a complex of historically accumulated
69
knowledge, traditions and thinking patterns indicative of Kyrgyz people’ (Aitpaeva 2013, p.
234). Traditional knowledge and beliefs related to kaiyp duino, the invisible world,
construct the intangible dimension of sacred sites, which essential for community-based
conservation of these sites and running them as commons. Without this intangible
dimension, the biophysical element of a sacred site becomes just another specimen of its
kind (e.g., a tree on sacred site which is conserved by local people versus ‘just another’
tree).
In the case of sacred sites, the ‘common-pool resource’ is the kasiet, i.e., the site’s special
power, which is essentially non-subtractable. The belief in kaiyp duino, also make a sacred
site to be perceived as commons regardless of the property rights regime. Ostrom et al.
(1999) identified four property rights regimes: (i) Open access, (ii) Common (group)
property, (iii) Individual property and (iv) Government property. But unlike conventional
commons, sacred sites have ee (literally: owner), a guardian spirit of a place, who holds
‘property rights’ over the sacred site, thus adding a fifth property rights regime.
When compared against commons definition (Ostrom et al. 1999), sacred sites meet the
excludability criteria. Indeed, It is costly to exclude other users because none of the
pilgrims owns a sacred site. The guardian spirit of the place is the main owner. If someone
unjustly excludes other pilgrims from accessing a sacred site, one may suffer sanctions such
as illness, misfortune, or even death. Thus, exclusion is possible, but costly. However,
sacred sites do not quite fit the subtractability criteria because sacred sites have two
dimensions: a) the physical world, in which a tangible element of a site exists (e.g., tree,
spring, boulder, bushes) and b) kaiyp duino, the invisible world, where the kasiet (special
70
power) of a sacred site is rooted. In the physical dimension, subtractability is possible. For
example, if a large enough group of pilgrims visits a sacred site and takes up all the space
around it, then other pilgrims will not be able to physically access this site. Thus,
exploitation by one user reduces the sites’ availability for others, i.e., it is congruent with
the subtractability criterion. However, if we look at the intangible element of a sacred site,
i.e., its kasiet, the special power/guardian spirit, then it is non-subtractable. As a matter of
fact, the more people come and revere a sacred site, the stronger the kasiet of the place
becomes. Thus, in that sense there is ‘increasability’ meaning that the use of a resource by
one user increases its availability for others.
Local communities’ perception of sacred sites as collectivelty owned not only prevents the
notorious ‘tragedy of the commons’ and also contributes to better conservation of sacred
site. First, one of the basic rules of visiting sacred sites is conserving them. This creates a
positive feedback loop and as a result, the more people visit a particular site, the more
conservation effort is directed to it. Second, the more people visit sacred sites, then the
more people get to know that certain places should be preserved because of their
sacredness. This diminishes the chances of ‘accidental’ damage to a sacred site by a person
or a group who did not know that a certain place was sacred. Thus, social institutions (such
as sacred site guardians), social norms, rules and taboos as well as perception of sacred
sites as a form of common pool resource (Rutte 2011) contribute to conservation of sacred
sites by local communities and represent a traditional model of nature conservation. Given
that a tradition of visiting sacred sites is deeply rooted in the local culture, it is obvious that
these social institutions pertaining to sacred sites have been in place for a long time.
However, if sacred sites have been preserved and respected by local people for centuries
71
and if the tradition is alive now, how come sacred sites are not taken into account in
modern formal conservation?
I attempt to explain no/little interaction between traditional and formal models of
conservation (sacred sites and the YKBR respectively) using the ‘path dependency
concept’, which is understood as a direct effect of policy and management decisions in the
past to those in the later stages (Howlett 2003). YKBR’s and the whole conservation
system’s neglect of sacred sites can be explained by the fact that state-run institutions have
always been reluctant to cooperate with spiritual/religious institutions. Indeed, during the
Soviet era, sacred sites in particular and spirituality and religion in general were oppressed,
and since gaining independence the state has been secular. Thus, formal, state-run
conservation has never paid attention to local, cultural (spiritual) mechanisms of
conservation.
Local communities, on the other hand, have never received government support in
managing their sacred sites. Moreover, during the Soviet era, sacred sites were preserved
despite state sanctions against those who visited them (Aitpaeva 2007). As a result, local
communities have never relied on state support for managing sacred sites, even after
gaining independence. At the same time, in the last ten years, traditional practitioners,
sacred site guardians, and NGOs such as Aigine have been active in promoting legal
recognition of sacred sites in Kyrgyzstan. Thus, informal local-level conservation model
represented by sacred sites, and the formal conservation represented by the YKBR and its
structural elements, co-exist on the same territory and frequently overlap. Nonetheless,
these two models of conservation do not interact and are not used to reinforce each other.
72
4.4 Conclusion
Sacred sites within YKBR are diverse. Contrary to the division of sacred sites into ‘sacred
natural sites’ (Vershuuren et al. 2010) and human-made ones, sacred sites in the YKBR are
usually mixed, i.e., they include both natural and human-made elements (Samakov and
Berkes, in press). Sacred sites are protected by local communities and represent a
traditional model of nature conservation. The SES analytical lens shows that incentives
(drivers) for conserving sacred sites stem from a knowledge – practice – belief concept
(Berkes 2012) of local traditional knowledge. Traditional institutions ensuring the
conservation of sacred sites such as rules, knowledge, beliefs, taboos and sanctions
(Premauer 2013, MacDonald 2003) are present in the case of sacred sites in YKBR. The
institution of sacred site guardians (people who voluntarily look after a sacred site taking it
as their spiritual calling) is an important driver in sacred site conservation in YKBR
(Aitpaeva 2009).
Sacred sites in the YKBR are perceived and run as commons by local communities (Rutte
2011), which contributes to the preservation of sacred sites. Traditional practitioners’
perception and rules of visiting sacred sites prevents ‘tragedy of the commons’ scenario on
sacred sites. Conversely, the more people visit a sacred site, the better that site is preserved.
Despite the fact that sacred sites represent a model of community-based conservation, and
some core elements of formally protected areas are also sacred places, sacred sites are
overlooked in formal conservation strategies within the YKBR. The reasons for this may be
twofold: first, most of the conservation managers seem to be unaware of sacred sites and
second, state institutions have little experience working with local spiritual, cultural or
religious institutions, including sacred sites and their guardians.
73
CHAPTER 5. GOVERNANCE AND BIOCULTURAL DIVERSITY CONSERVATION IN
THE YSYK-KÖL BIOSPHERE RESERVE
5.1 Introduction
Chapter 5 is built around Objective 2 ‘to analyze the governance structure and current
formal conservation practices in Ysyk-Köl Biosphere Reserve (YKBR).’ To achieve this
objective the research sought answers for such questions as: What are the current
governance arrangements in the YKBR? What are the current challenges in formal
conservation within the YKBR? Are there provisions to include stakeholder participation?
Graham et al. (2003) identify governance as interactions among structures, processes and
traditions that determine how decisions are made, power and responsibilities are shared,
and stakeholders are involved in managing a given protected area (PA). A governance
system comprises rules, institutions, organizations and networks (Biermann et al. 2009)
which are shaped by various historical and cultural factors (Lee and Perl 2003).
Governance systems include the interactions of actors and multiple (usually nested) tiers of
institutions (i.e., local, sub-national, national and international levels) and are the result of
‘developing and exercising authority and responsibility over time’ (Borrini-Feyerabend et
al. 2013, p. 26).
YKBR comprises the oldest protected area in Kyrgyzstan, Ysyk-Köl State Reserve, which
is over 65 years old. Lee and Perl (2003) concluded that institutions (and systems of
institutions) can learn and accumulate historical experience which shapes and influences
governance mechanisms. Ter-Ghazaryan and Heinen (2006, p.25) claim that contemporary
governance approaches in the YKBR are not much different from those of the Soviet period
and that the Reserve ‘continues to run according to the Soviet paradigm.’ Indeed, many
74
people who now run the Biosphere Reserve (BR) and develop conservation and governance
strategies belong to ‘the old Soviet school’ (Conservation manager, pers. comm., 2014),
while young professionals are not willing to work for the Reserve due to low salaries and
wages (Ter-Ghazaryan and Heinen 2006). Thus, modern governance structure and actors’
interactions in the YKBR display ‘path dependency’, a concept interpreted by Howlett
(2003) as the direct effect of policy and management decisions in the past to those in the
later stages.
This chapter looks at YKBR’s governance system through a social-ecological systems
(SES) lens, which suggests that effective governance systems and institutions should a)
match complex social-ecological systems in the YKBR, b) adapt as these systems change
over time, and c) help steer these systems towards sustainability (CCRN 2015). This
analytical framework is broad enough to incorporate some key emerging concepts in
environmental governance such as (1) recognition of the importance of fit and scale; (2)
fostering adaptiveness, flexibility, and learning; (3) coproducing knowledge from diverse
sources; (4) understanding the emergence of new actors and their roles in governance; and
(5) changing expectations about accountability and legitimacy (Armitage et al. 2012).
First, this chapter presents results related to the governance and conservation practices in
the YKBR. Then, follows a discussion of the particular governance features of the YKBR
that shape and influence the conservation challenges in the YKBR and analysis of YKBR’s
current governance approaches weighed against ‘key ingredients’ for governing complex
SES (CCRN 2015).
75
5.2 Results: Governance and biocultural conservation in the YKBR
‘Token’ role of the YKBR in conservation, its ‘artificial’ nature was a biggest theme that
emerged from interviews and participant observation. For example, informants from
various stakeholder groups (including some conservation managers themselves)
characterized YKBR as a ‘non-working’, ‘poorly performing’ institution and/or an agency
‘that exists only on paper’, ‘unrelated to conservation.’ This big theme consisted of five
smaller subthemes described in a greater detail in this section: 1) frequent change in
YKBR’s institutional structure, 2) lack of highly skilled staff, 3) outdated and not clearly
defined zoning, 4) lack of finance and 5) interactions with local communities. In addition to
those five themes, there were some other emergent themes (Table 5.1); however, I
deliberately excluded them from the current work because they have been discussed in
other studies and reports.
Plate 18. A sketch in the YKBR office (by Dr. Shukurov, E. J)
A bird on the left: - Where is the rest?
A bird on the right (with a stick instead of a body and two tags ‘Issyk-Kul Biosphere Territory’ and
‘Directorate’: On paper and in words!
76
Table 5.1 Threats to biodiversity conservation in the YKBR: these themes emergent
during the research but were excluded from the present study
Threats and/or
challenges
Short description of the threat/challenge
Poor waste water
treatment and
sewage as well as
solid waste
disposal facilities
There are no facilities for solid waste disposal in the region and no
comprehensive recycling programs. The sewage systems of three
major cities (namely Karakol, Cholpon-Ata and Balyksshy) are in
poor condition. Although resorts are obliged to have water treatment
facilities, local settlements have no sewage system. All the waste
water goes under ground and after mixing with ground waters poses a
threat to the Lake’s ecosystem (YKBR Periodic Report, 2013).
Kumtor Gold
mining company
It has been a controversial issue to identify the scale and scope of the
environmental damages incurred due to mining operations and to
compare costs and benefits of this mine. However, the mine has an
obvious negative effect on conservation due to the following facts: a)
it is an open pit gold mine (second-largest open pit gold mine in the
world), b) the ore is located under the glacier, so that the glacier is
removed as an overburden, c) the mine and its tailings are in the
watershed of the Ysyk-Köl Lake, and any leakage from tailing ponds
may have adverse effects on the lake ecosystem and d) the mine is
located in close proximity to the Sarychat-Ertash State Reserve
(Conservation manager, pers. comm., 2014). Also see Wunderlich et
al. (2014), Kojekov (2008), Baetov (2006).
Weak law
enforcement
‘There are many good laws regarding environment conservation but
they mostly remain on paper. There will be no environmental
problems we are facing now, if only half of the laws were being
enforced effectively’ (Conservation manager, pers. comm., 2014). See
also Kojekov (2008), Baetov (2006), Ter-Ghazaryan and Heinen
(2006).
Glacier melting In last 50 years, Kyrgyzstan’s area covered by glaciers has shrunk by
25% from 80.000 km2 to 60.000 km
2 (UNDP 2011).
Degradation of
natural coastal
ecosystems
Ysyk-Köl Lake’s coastal zones are under intensive use, which leads to
degradations of unique coastal ecosystems represented by sea-
buckthorn bushes and the narrow strip of wetlands in certain areas of
the lake. The types of use include: grazing of livestock due to limited
pastures nearby villages, b) intensive construction of recreational
facilities (especially in north western part of the lake). The buckthorn
shrubs are under threat due to their removal for building recreational
facilities and non-sustainable harvesting methods of the buckthorn
berries (Wunderlich et al. 2014).
Wildlife and fish
population
decrease
The number of large herbivores, which are hunted animals, has
decreased over the last 25 years (Conservation manager, pers. comm.,
2014). Fish stocks in the lake have been overexploited and some
endemic species of fish such as chebachok (Leuciscus bergi), chebak
(Leuciscus schmidti), Issyk Kul naked osman (Diptychus dybowskii
77
lansdelli), Issyk Kul marinka (Schizothorax issykkuli), Issyk Kul
gudgeon (Gobio gobio latus) and Issyk Kul minnow (Phoxinus
issykkulensis) are nearly extinct (FAO 2013).
Lack of control
over use of
chemicals in
agriculture
‘The farmers now can use any pesticides or chemicals they want or
can afford to buy. No government agency is monitoring or controlling
it properly. Pesticides will have a long-lasting effect on the lake and
mountain ecosystems’ (Conservation manager, pers. comm., 2014).
1. Frequent change in YKBR’s institutional structure was a frequently emerging theme.
It is seen by most informants as a factor that has been negatively affecting conservation
practices in the YKBR. This institutional restructuring of the YKBR was embedded in
frequent institutional reforms of the State Agency on Environmental Protection itself. For
example, SAEPF has been institutionally changed eight times since its inception in 1991
and evolved from a ‘State Committee’ to a ‘Ministry’ and then to a ‘State Agency’ (Table
5.2).
Table 5.2 Changes in institutional structure of the State Agency of Environmental
Protection and Forestry1
Name of the State Institution responsible
for Environmental Protection
Approved by the following legal act:
State Committee for Environmental
Protection
Government Resolution N 111, March 27,
1991
State Committee for Environmental
Protection
Government Resolution N 156, April 16,
1992
State Committee for Environmental
Protection
Government Resolution N 71, February 16,
1994
State Committee for Environmental
Protection
Government Resolution N 349, August 11,
1995
Ministry of Environmental Protection President’s Decree N УП-45, March 4, 1996
Ministry of Environmental Protection President’s Decree УП N 92, April 3, 1998
Ministry of Ecology and Emergency
Situations
President’s Decree №363, December 28,
2000
State Agency for Environmental Protection
and Forestry
President’s Decree № 462, October 15,
2005
State Agency of Environmental Protection
and Forestry
President’s Decree №425, October 26, 2009
1 This table was created on the basis of Governmental and Presidential decrees accessed via Ministry of
Justice’s Centralized Law Database URL: http://cbd.minjust.gov.kg/ru-ru/npakr
78
Although YKBR’s institutional changes were meant to optimize its work and improve
nature conservation, according to some informants these frequent reforms instead had a
negative impact on YKBR by a) diverting human and financial resources from conservation
work per se to administrative work related to structure change, b) not providing enough
time for team-building within the units of the YKBR, c) not providing enough time for
building horizontal cooperation with other state institutions, and d) creating an undesirable
image of the YKBR as ‘a puppet organization that is tossed around’ (Conservation
manager, pers. comm., 2014).
Upon establishment of the YKBR, there were three departments
within it, namely Biodiversity Conservation Department, Department
of Landscape Planning, and Rangers Department. Then, these
departments were transformed into Biodiversity and Ecosystem
Conservation Department and the Department of Environmental and
Land Use Monitoring. The latter department then was transformed
into a Department of Science, Ecological Monitoring and Registration
of Bioresources. Our institutional structure changes too frequently.
And those changes mostly come from the higher-level institution. For
example, at one point YKBR was under a Ministry of Emergency
Situations. After the current merging of the SAEPF’s Territorial
Office and the Hunting department into the YKBR, our structure will
change. The new institutional structure has not been approved yet
(Conservation manager, pers. comm., 2014).
Constantly changing structure prevents the YKBR team from focusing
on their actual work, building up a good team and connections with
other stakeholders. The frequent renaming of departments within the
BR does not bring about any change. Also, YKBR Directors change
so often. I guess during the 15 years of YKBR’s existence, it had
about 11-13 Directors. All this diminishes credibility of the YKBR
among other institutions and creates an image of a ‘not serious
organization’ (NGO representative, pers. comm., 2014).
At the time of this study, there were some structural reforms underway in the YKBR. Other
departmental units of the SAEPF in the region such as the Territorial Management Office
on Environmental Protection, the Ysyk-Köl office of the Hunting Department, and forestry
79
offices in the Ysyk-Köl region were being transformed into departmental units within the
YKBR Directorate General. Protected areas that form the core of the YKBR, namely Ysyk-
Köl State Reserve, Sarychat-Ertash State Reserve and Karakol State Park now report to the
YKBR General Directorate (as opposed to reporting directly to the SAEPF as formerly).
These Protected Areas retained a certain degree of autonomy and have their own governing
bodies. These institutional reforms in the YKBR aimed at bringing all SAEPF subdivisions
in the Ysyk-Köl area under the YKBR management umbrella. Although there were some
informants who were concerned that this reform is done for gaining more power and
influence, the majority of informants viewed this reform as necessary and potentially very
useful.
It is good that conservation agencies are coming together under the
same roof. Before we had the BR, the Territorial management on
Environmental Protection as well as State Reserves, Forestry
departments doing work on their own, and now BR can coordinate all
the work (Conservation manager, pers. comm., 2014).
The original idea when creating the Biosphere Reserve in Ysyk-Köl
was to unite all conservation institutions under the same umbrella.
Back in 2011, State Reserves in the region and SAEPF’s Territorial
Office in Ysyk-Köl were part of the YKBR but in 2002 they were
transformed into a separate unit. YKBR started working under the
Ministry of Emergencies, whereas the Territorial Office joined with
the State Forestry Agency. Now, we are coming back to that original
idea. Before the current reform, protected areas (PAs) within the
YKBR used to report to the SAEPF’s Territorial Office. Both
SAEPF’s Territorial Office and the YKBR did similar, almost the
same work but were independent of each other. Now PAs must report
to the YKBR and I think it is correct because these PAs constitute core
zones of the BR. SAEPF’s Territorial Office is now joining the YKBR
as a department but there was some opposition because Territorial
Office wanted to keep its autonomy. The conservation experience of
all these years of work shows a need for unification and cooperation
among conservation institutions, which are doing similar jobs
(Conservation manager, pers. comm., 2014).
80
Parallel to structural reform of the YKBR, a new national park is being established within
the YKBR and it will become another core area of the Biosphere Reserve. Khan-Tenir
National Park, covering approximately 178,000 ha) is expected to protect habitats of
endemic and endangered species in the alpine and nival ecosystems of Ak-Suu district in
the YKBR. The new national park will be connected to the Sarychat-Eertash State Reserve
by ecologic corridors. The establishment of the Khan-Tenir National Park is being
administered by the SAEPF with technical and financial support of UNDP and GEF. The
project’s time frame is 2013-2017 with an overall budget of 5 million USD (SAEPF 2014).
2. Hiring highly-qualified staff for the BR has been another challenge due to low wages
for job positions. The rangers’ average salary is about 30-80 CAD per month (1500-4000
KGS), whereas other managerial monthly salaries are about 80-140 CAD (Conservation
manager, pers. comm., 2014). The government has developed some additional reward
mechanisms for rangers: 30% of fines for poaching and illegal use of resources goes as a
bonus payment for the ranger(s) who catch the poacher.
We lack young professionals. None wants to come and work for
such a low pay. Only those who are ‘wacky’ about conservation or
those who will take just any job agree to work in such conditions.
Even if a young professional comes, he/she is constantly looking
for opportunities to get a better paid job (Conservation manager,
pers. comm., 2014).
Giving 30% of fines to the rangers who arrest poachers is a good
idea taking into account rangers’ low salary. Let’s just look at
numbers: a fine for illegal hunting of a mountain sheep is 400, 000
KGS now, 30% of which is 120,000 KGS. In other words, this
bonus is equivalent to 40 months of salary, given that average
salary is 3,000 KGS. However, such big fines may have drawbacks
as well. On one hand, a ranger who catches a poacher does not get
money before the poacher is found guilty in court, so there is an
element of uncertainty. On the other hand, a poacher may be more
willing to bribe a ranger on the spot with an amount of money that
81
is less than the overall fine. In 3-5 years, we will see how effective
this new system is (NGO representative, pers. comm., 2014).
The latest reforms in the YKBR are expected to increase the wages for conservation
managers because all BR employees including rangers will hold government worker status.
The status of government worker implies higher pay but it comes with higher requirements
for job candidates as well. As a result, even rangers are now required to have a university
degree in ecology, biology or another related field, which most of the current rangers do not
have.
Another change that came with the recent reforms was the consolidation of the PAs’
scientific units under the YKBR Directorate General. The Ysyk-Köl State Reserve and
Sarychat-Ertash State Reserve used to have their own science departments, which carried
out scientific research and monitoring in the PAs. After the reform, all the research
positions have been reallocated to the YKBR (Balykchy town), as a result of which most of
the previous researchers lost their jobs because it was not economically feasible for them to
move to Balykchy town. The rationale behind consolidating the science units under the
YKBR was to increase the quality of the conducted research.
Frankly speaking, scholarly research has not been done properly in the
scientific units of the PAs. The leading scholars published high-
quality works but other researchers didn’t. Now, when all scholars
will be in the same place, there will be more control over the quality
and quantity of the produced work (Conservation manager, pers.
comm., 2014).
3. YKBR’s zoning, according to most informants, is: a) outdated and not precise and b) not
clearly identified on the ground. Current YKBR zoning scheme was developed almost
twenty years ago before establishment of the YKBR.
82
My PhD research was a part of the project that gave recommendations
on creation of the YKBR. Zonation was made based on our findings
but social-ecological systems in the region have changed since:
population has grown, livelihood activities have changed, new
settlements and developments have been put in place. Indeed, almost
20 years have passed since then. The current zonation system was well
defined in theory and on maps but unfortunately has never been
marked on the ground. Zonation should be revised and YKBR must
make sure that boundaries between zones are clearly marked on the
ground. It will allow us to better enforce usage regimes in every zone.
(Dr. Tolkunbek Asykulov, Director of NABU in Kyrgyzstan, pers.
comm., 2014).
All the available maps showing YKBR zoning are not detailed and often are not
comprehensive (Wunderlich et al. 2014). Another challenge is that boundaries between
zones remained on maps but have never been marked and established in the field (NGO
representative, pers. comm., 2014). The fact that three out of four core areas (except for #4
in Table 3.3) coincide with core areas of other PAs within the YKBR makes it feasible to
clearly identify most of the core zones of the YKBR, whereas the boundaries between
buffer, transition and rehabilitation zones are blurred. Even with YKBR’s core areas per se,
there are some gaps and inconsistencies with the legislation, e.g., the core area of Sarychat-
Eertash State Reserve makes up only 50% of the entire Reserve, whereas the Law on
Protected Areas sets a minimum at 75%.
The conservation managers pointed out that YKBR’s current capacity is enough for
focusing on management of the core areas only. The buffer, transition and rehabilitation
zones remain mostly neglected. For example, at the time of the research, there were big
debates going on in the province about ‘inturohota’, the Foreign Tourist Hunting. The
situation was that almost all buffer zones around the YKBR’s core areas were leased out to
private companies that attract foreign hunter tourists (Table 5.3). These hunters purchase
83
licenses from SAEPF’s Hunting Department for hunting some big game, including certain
red-listed species such as Marco Polo sheep (Ovis ammon polii), which violates provisions
of the Wildlife Act that prohibit hunting and any other actions that decrease the population
or degrade the habitat of red-listed species.
NGO representatives (pers. comm., 2014) pointed out that mismanagement of buffer zones
diminishes the effectiveness of conservation in core areas. Local communities are mostly
against ‘inturohota’ because the hunting companies and the conservation managers cannot
ensure financial and procedural transparency of hunting activities (Local villager, pers.
comm., 2014).
Plate 19. A former camp site of MK Travel Foreign Tourist Company in the core area of Ysyk-Köl
Biosphere Reserve
84
The YKBR managers confirmed that they are well aware of zoning problems and that they
are working on revising YKBR’s zoning scheme. Revised YKBR zoning is expected to be
created using modern GIS technologies and to reflect up-to-date livelihood interests of local
communities.
Table 5.3 Hunting companies that received a permit to use assigned areas in the
buffer zones of the YKBR for Foreign Tourist Hunting1
Lot # Districts within the YKBR Area in ha Name of the hunting company
1
Ak-Suu district (eastern part of
the YKBR)
66,042.5 Ashuu-Tor & Co Ltd
2 61,565.2 Central Asian Safari Club Ltd
3 80,707.2 Central Asian Safari Club Ltd
4 62,964.0 Tour-Khan-Tengri Ltd
5 65,005.7 Issyk-Kul-Intour Ltd
6
Ton districts (south-western
part of the YKBR)
Not assigned yet
7 128,406.7 Sevian Ltd
8 Not assigned yet
9 76,313.8 Felis Ltd
10
Jeti-Oguz district (south-
eastern part of the YKBR)
75,572.9 Society of Sport Hunting
11 74,540.9 Karasay-Syrt Ltd
12 72,156.4 MK-Travel Ltd
13 77,456.1 Fortuna Travel Ltd
14 108,924.4 Chakyr-Korum-Trophy Ltd
15 78,650.8 Kalkan & Co Ltd
16 74,005.6 Diana-Travel Ltd
17 78,061.2 Bulat-M Ltd
18 79,312.4 Ala-Too Adventure Tour Ltd
4. Financing, or rather lack thereof, was named one of the major reasons for halting
YKBR’s planned projects and initiatives. All funding comes from the national budget. Up
until 2013 an entrance fee for entering YKBR was another major source of funding. The
entrance fee was collected at ‘eco posts’ from vehicles coming into YKBR. Vehicles of
local people and some other categories of visitors were exempt from paying the fee. There
were three eco posts located on three main entry points to YKBR: a) Ysyk-Köl Eco Post,
1 This table is adapted from the official minutes taken at the Decision Panel meeting on allocations of lots in
the Ysyk-Köl region to the Foreign Tourist Hunting companies, 24-27 June 2014.
85
the main post located in the western part of YKBR near Balykchy town, b) Kyzyl-Ompol
Eco Post, located on the road from the Kochkor district of adjacent the Naryn region and c)
Karkyra Eco Post, located in the eastern part of YKBR on the state border with Kazakhstan.
Twenty per cent of the revenue from eco posts went for local taxes, 10% went to the
National Fund for Wildlife Protection, 20% was spent for administrative expenses of the
YKBR, and 50 % was reserved for scientific research and monitoring. Revenue in 2010,
2011 and 2012 totaled 4.7, 8.6 and 11.6 million KGS respectively (Conservation manager,
pers. comm., 2014). The eco posts were eliminated by Government Resolution #279 on
May 23, 2013 ‘to ensure an unobstructed
access of people to the Ysyk-Köl
Biosphere Reserve.’ Study participants
clarified that the major reason for
eliminating eco posts was the inability of
the YKBR to ensure the transparency of
the funds being collected. SAEPF has
proposed establishing ecological posts on state borders with other countries, although
mechanisms for collecting fees and their distribution among governmental conservation
institutions have not yet been developed.
Some parliament members have suggested reopening eco posts because they were a good
source of revenue for the YKBR, but most conservation managers believe that at this time,
it is more beneficial not to do so.
The eco post brought a considerable amount of revenue. But it was
more of a curse than bliss. There were always some stakeholders who
were dissatisfied by the way money was distributed. As a result,
Plate 20. Ysyk-Köl Ecopost in Balykchy town
86
Director Generals of the YKBR were able to stay in office for one
year on average and then they were forced to resign. If I am not
mistaken, there were 10 or 11 Director Generals since 2001. The
YKBR was more busy compiling reports and having audit check-ups
than with doing their actual job. Also it gives a wrong impression to
people: they think ‘YKBR just collects money.’ If the eco posts
reopen it will just start over again (Conservation manager, pers.
comm., 2014).
5. YKBR’s engagement with local communities is considered by the majority of study
participants as far from desirable. Local communities seem to lack knowledge and
understanding of the YKBR mission and mandate; there have been some conflicts between
local communities and conservation managers over access to resources; and there is a
feeling of mutual mistrust between conservation managers and the local communities. The
fact that public awareness of the Biosphere Reserve’s purpose and functions is low is
acknowledged both by the BR managers themselves and by local community members.
Many local people think that BR is an ecological check-point,
where BR employees collect a fee for entering the YKBR. They do
not know what kind of an institution the YKBR is, what its
functions and goals are, what the BR does (Conservation manager,
pers. comm., 2014).
I see the sign that says that it is a Biosphere Reserve but I don’t
know what exactly they do besides charging fees to tourists for
entering the Ysyk-Köl. It is just another way of earning money, I
guess. (Local villager, YKBR, pers. comm. 2014)
Conservation managers emphasize that local communities are heterogeneous with regards
to responsible use of natural resources and understanding the need for conservation.
Whereas some local people think only of economic benefits and livelihoods, others are
concerned about conserving nature to make sure that ‘their grandchildren are able to see
what their grandparents have seen’ (Local villager, pers.com. 2014). Community
recreational and livelihood activities have been expanding in recent years which has
87
resulted in local communities contesting the rights of conservation institutions to manage
land and other resources in PAs. Local communities’ claims that they should have rights to
access the resources within PAs create conflicts with conservation managers. Despite these
conflicts, both parties acknowledge that they have to work together to solve both
conservation and livelihood problems.
The attitude of local communities toward conservation managers is rather distrustful. This
negativity is based on some cases of conservation managers’ misconduct, such as forging
wildlife monitoring data, violation of usage rules within the Reserves, and involvement in
professionally-organized poaching (Local villager, pers. comm., 2014). Locals blame
rangers for grazing their own private livestock in PAs (Local villager, pers. comm. 2014,
Wunderlich et al. 2014), where no grazing should be allowed. Such activities cause locals
to see conservation managers as another group of resource users, ones who misuse their
powers to get access to resources and exclude other users.
They say we cannot graze our livestock on the land of protected areas.
But how come rangers can graze their livestock there? How is my
livestock different from theirs? (Local villager, pers. comm., 2014)
I worked in conservation for 17 years during the Soviet time and early
independence. Back then we did a good job. Nowadays,
conservationists pretend as if they are working. For example, some
conservation managers don’t go out to the field to do proper
monitoring. They sit in their homes and fill out the forms (Local
villager, pers. comm., 2014).
Local people consider it common knowledge that conservation managers are involved in
poaching in two major ways: a) establishing informal connections with illegal resource
users (e.g., fisherman and hunters) and providing patronage for a certain reward and b)
illegally using resources (e.g., hunting, fishing, cutting and selling timber) on their own.
88
I wonder if the Biosphere Reserve [i.e., its employees] does any
work. They know how to collect money, that’s it. They are
supposed to protect nature from poachers but they are ‘number one’
poachers themselves’ (Local villager, pers. comm., 2014)
The entire conservation system is corrupt. Poor rangers have to
make a living and that’s why they use resources they were
supposed to protect. We understand that. However, some higher
ranking officials do not respect the law. For example, [name of a
high ranking official] was building a huge two-story cabin at the
shore of the lake. Where do you think that official got timber from?
Using authority, he/she just called to the conservation managers
and told that he/she needs that much cubic meters of high-quality
timber (Local villager, pers. comm., 2014).
The salary of the rangers is very low (on average 2000-4000 KGS
[40-80 CAD] per month). They have to use resources illegally to
sustain themselves and their families because the state does not
provide enough money and resources. Difficult economic
conditions also make conservation managers team up with or
provide supervision and support to the poachers to make a living
for themselves and their families (NGO representative, pers.
comm., 2014).
Lack of trust between conservation managers and local communities creates challenges for
the YKBR managers to effectively engage locals in conservation and to enforce the law
pertaining to conservation. Locals are reluctant to abide by the laws when they see that
officials, who are supposed to protect nature and enforce the law, are violating the law
themselves.
We conduct a number of events such as cleaning up the shore of
the lake, the March of Parks, round table meetings and discussions
to raise local people’s ecological awareness. However, it seems like
they [local people] forget everything we talked about during the
event as soon as the event is over (Conservation manager, pers.
comm., 2014)
It is not possible to make local people abide with the provisions of
the law when people who are responsible for enforcing it break
those laws themselves. It is not a problem peculiar to conservation
only, it is the problem with the law enforcement system in general
(NGO representative, pers. comm. 2014)
89
The main reasons for conservation managers’ misconduct are considered to be low salaries
and poor working conditions. At the same time, changing values are also named as one of
the reasons for the environmentally non-friendly behavior of both local people and
conservation managers.
5.3 Discussion: Characteristics of governance and conservation in the
YKBR
Many conservation problems in PAs are rooted in their governance systems (CBD 2004).
To understand whether YKBR’s governance system matches complex SES, I will analyze
YKBR’s current governance arrangements. My main claim is that some key features of
current governance system in the YKBR contribute to the persistence of challenges
described in the Results section.
When talking about conservation practices, many informants referred to ‘Soviet times’ as a
baseline against which they compared current biodiversity conservation practices and their
effectiveness. The current conservation system is often referred as ‘just what’s left from the
strong nature conservation institutions that existed during Soviet times’ (Conservation
manager, pers. comm., 2014). Overall, conservation during Soviet times is perceived as
‘exemplary’ and modern day conservation is deemed far less effective (Local villager, pers.
comm., 2014). Congruent with ‘path dependency’ concept (Howlett 2003), current
conservation practices inherited some features of the Soviet system, but these practices
have not proved effective after the social, economic and political changes wrought up by
the disintegration of the Soviet Union (NGO representative, pers. comm., 2014).
90
Now I will discuss some of those ‘inherited’ features of current approaches to nature
conservation in the YKBR and provide some recommendations. Based on participatory
observation, interviews, focus group discussions and document analysis, I identified the
following characteristics of conservation practices in the YKBR: 1) command and control
approach to governance and 2) conservation approaches, with five features such as: a) core
area based approach, b) a biodiversity approach with a focus on species diversity, c)
sanction-focused approach, d) lack of cooperation among stakeholders and e) outdated
approaches to the public outreach.
5.3.1 Command and control approach. Current governance structure and decision
making are characterized by a top-down approach and low public participation. Most of the
decision making has been done in Bishkek, the capital of the country; and YKBR has been
mostly an executive institution, although the latest reforms in its governance structure are
expected to give the YKBR more decision making power.
The governance structure is centralized with certain mechanisms of public participation
(such as an Advisory Board) in decision making and planning. Although YKBR’s Statute
sets up an Advisory Board as a mechanism of public participation in decision making, this
Board mostly functions as a token institution. Its members are proposed by the
Government’s Plenipotentiary Representative in the Ysyk-Köl region and approved by
SAEPF, and the Board’s decisions are advisory in nature (Table 3.2). Weak public
participation in YKBR governance was mentioned in MAB’s feedback on YKBR’s second
periodic review (provided at the 25th session of the international coordinating MAB
council, May 2013), which emphasized the need to develop a governance structure and
91
management plan that facilitates participatory decision making processes in the YKBR
(MAB 2013, p. 16). Thus, YKBR’s current governance system does not display
understanding the emergence of new actors and their roles in governance.
The project to establish the Khan Tenir National Park in the YKBR serves as an example of
the government’s attempts to collaborate with various actors, stakeholders and
rightsholders. The project is taking place in the YKBR, it is managed by the SAEPF and
funded by GEF/UNDP. As a part of the project, local communities were consulted in
identifying the boundaries of the prospective PA. Government officials mentioned that such
extensive public consultations regarding establishment of a PA were held for the first time
in the modern history of Kyrgyzstan.
We should acknowledge that it is the first time in modern history of
our country when local communities are involved and are
participating in the decision-making regarding the establishment of
the PA. Back in the day, a PA would have been just created from
the Center and then locals would have been notified (Conservation
manager, pers. comm., 2014).
One of the main issues that came out of the public consultations was the need to ensure the
livelihood rights of local people. Local community representatives insisted that the
prospective National Park’s Statute should reflect the interests of local people and ensure
certain rights to resources.
We are concerned that after establishment of the National Park, we
will lose our pasture lands. Even if they promise to give the
pastures in the buffer zone for lease, we won’t be able to take it.
For example, in the Karakol National Park one rich person (who
has thousands of sheep) rents almost all the land. A group of poor
people cannot pay as much as one rich man and that’s why the park
managers are interested in renting the land to the rich. They say it is
a market economy and rent the land to anyone who pays more
(Local villager, field notes, 2014).
92
Being present at one of the public consultations, I asked a government official
to comment on the possibility of going beyond mere consultations and
involving local communities in co-managing the PAs. The government official
mentioned that there have been some co-managed forests throughout the
country, and this co-management experience will be used to eventually shift
towards co-managing PAs as well.
Recent institutional reform in the YKBR that gives it more decision making power may
help to build a more bottom-up governance system. I claim that more bottom-up
governance can help the YKBR to foster its adaptiveness, flexibility, and learning as well
as to address its current problems with zoning and staff recruitment. For example, Article 4
of YKBR’s Statute stipulates that ‘reconsideration of the Biosphere Reserve boundaries,
zoning schemes, rules of resource use in core areas and buffers zones, and abolition of the
YKBR is done by the Resolution of the Government of the Kyrgyz Republic.’ Proposals for
such changes can come from the SAEPF, other ministries, state agencies and commissions
as well as from the State Administration of the Ysyk-Köl Region. Some informants believe
that the YKBR should have more rights in defining the zoning scheme in the Biosphere
Reserve.
Zoning is approved by the resolution of the government, while it
should be decided on a local level. First of all, taking decisions on
the government level is more difficult and requires more time.
Zoning should be adaptive and should change as ecosystems
change (Conservation manager, pers. comm., 2014).
Giving more rights to the YKBR in defining zoning is likely to make zoning more adaptive.
At the same time the YKBR Statute stipulates that only state agencies and government
institutions can propose changes in BR’s zoning and conservation regime in each zone,
93
whereas local communities or NGOs have no such right. Meaningful participation of all
stakeholders and rightsholders (such as local communities, government agencies and
NGOs) in identifying the boundaries between zones can make the zoning scheme clearer. In
turn, clear boundaries between BR zones and the public’s participation in delimiting the
zones can make it easier for conservation managers to enforce resource use rules in various
zones.
More decision making authority can also help the YKBR to address the challenge of
recruiting personnel and fighting poaching. Currently, under the provisions of the law on
government workers, conservation managers (including rangers) are required to have a
university degree. Rangers are the people who interact with locals most and they are the
link connecting the management system with local communities (Pinto 2015). Although
possessing rich local and traditional knowledge, many experienced rangers do not have a
university degree, which jeopardizes their job positions. Some informants believe that
YKBR should be allowed to hire TEK holders for ranger positions, even if the latter do not
have a formal university degree.
5.3.2 The YKBR’s approaches to conservation
YKBR’s approach to conservation can be characterized as one that a) focuses on core areas
management with an emphasis on biodiversity conservation on a species level, b) employs
sanctions against violators as a primary tool for conservation, c) lacks cooperation
mechanisms with other governmental and non-governmental institutions, and d) employs
outdated public outreach approaches.
94
Core area based approach. YKBR’s main activities and focus are related to BR’s core
areas, whereas buffer, transition and rehabilitation zones are mostly neglected. One of the
objective reasons for focusing on core areas is the vast territory of the BR and YKBR’s
limited personnel. The SES lens reveals that notions of ‘fit’ and ‘scale’ are neglected in the
current governance structure. Many informants pointed out that the effectiveness of overall
conservation is dependent on the well-being of the buffer, transition and rehabilitation
zones and thus, these ‘non-core’ zones of the YKBR should be better managed.
Biodiversity approach. The YKBR’s conservation strategies focus on biodiversity
conservation. Although the founding documents and acts acknowledge importance of
biodiversity conservation on genetic, species and ecosystem levels, in practice, the major
focus is on species-level diversity while genetic and ecosystem level diversity are
underplayed. The link between biological and cultural diversity (Maffi and Woodley 2010)
is not explicitly recognized in legal documents; and in conservation practice, cultural
diversity is not taken into account whatsoever. Consideration of cultural diversity can have
twofold benefits for the YKBR: a) it will allow the YKBR to better meet one of the MAB
Biosphere Reserve criteria: to ‘integrate cultural and biological diversity’ (MAB 2002) and
b) to employ culturally-rooted mechanisms of conservation such as sacred sites (more detail
in Chapter 6).
Sanctions-focused approach. Conservation strategies in the YKBR seem to be sanctions-
centered, that is, there is a belief among conservation managers that stricter sanctions
ensure better conservation. Indeed, the BR managers noted that the recent significant
95
increase in fines (by the factor of 3-15) (Table 5.4) reduced the number of poachers in the
YKBR.
The increase of sanctions gave a good effect especially in halting
illegal hunting. Now it is more economically reasonable for locals to
buy cattle then to pay fines. The locals do not hunt because of the
huge fines. For instance, if they poach and get caught they pay the
price of ten cows. (Conservation manager, pers. comm., 2014)
At the same time, a number of measures aimed at toughening the sanctions and further
restricting the use did not prove effective. For example, a 2008-2013 five-year Moratorium
on Artisan and Commercial Fishing in Ysyk-Köl Lake (Conservation manager, pers.
comm., 2014) and fishing bans for catching certain species of fish were unable to
effectively preserve these species and stocks (Alamanov and Mikkola 2011, Konurbaev et.
al. 2005) because resource users continued fishing even during the moratorium period.
Ilibezova et al. (2005) distinguished two types of fishermen in the Ysyk-Köl region: a)
hereditary fishermen, usually fishermen in second or third generation who have been
fishing for 10 years or more and b) new fisherman, those who has been fishing for less than
five years and was previously occupied in other agricultural activity but fisheries.
‘Hereditary’ fishermen possess traditional knowledge about fish species and the ecosystem
and are willing to preserve the lake and the fish stocks for their children and grandchildren,
whereas ‘new fishermen’ usually lack this knowledge and are not concerned about long
term preservation of ecosystem. For the former income is not the only reason for fishing,
whereas ‘new fishermen’ are very money oriented. Despite this difference, both groups are
‘poachers’ from the legal perspective since many fishermen do not have licenses (Ilibezova
et al. 2005).
96
Table 5.4 Fines (in KGS) for poaching some endangered species (set by the
Government’s Resolutions #7 signed on Jan 9, 1995 and #224 signed on May 3, 2013)
Species Fines in KGS1 as
of:
1995 2013
Mammals
Snow leopard (Uncia uncia) 15,000 500,000
Himalayan Brown Bear (Ursus arctos isabellinus) 12,000 400,000
Mountain sheep (Ovis ammon) 10,000 400,000
Red deer (Cervus elaphus) 6,000 400,000
Goitered gazelle (Gazella subgutturosa) 6,000 400,000
Otter (Lutra lutra) 6,000 200,000
Pallas’s cat (Felis manul) and Eurasian lynx (Lynx lynx isabellinus) 5,000 25,000
Dhole/Red wolf (Cuon alpinus) 3,000 25,000
Birds
Gyrfalcon (Falco rusticolus) 10,000 100,000
Peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus) 10,000 70,000
Great bustard (Otis tarda) 5,000 25,000
Fish
Pike asp (Aspiolucius esocinus) 1,000 3,030
Osman (Diptychus dybowskii) 100 3,030
Marinka (Schizothorax pseudoaksaiensis issykkuli) 15 505
Considering existing diversity among resource users, sanctions seem to be an effective tool
to discourage poaching when users try to exploit a resource without considering the adverse
environmental effects (e.g., ‘new fishermen’). At the same time, conservation incentives
created by government institutions for responsible users such as ‘hereditary fishermen’ may
be more effective then fines alone (Local villager, pers. comm. 2014).
The strict sanctions must be in place for those who violate the rules of
using resources. At the same, sanctions should be complemented by
incentives for responsible users. Now, there is a ‘stick’, but there is
still a need for a ‘carrot’ (NGO representative, pers. comm., 2014).
Lack of cooperation among stakeholders. A multi-stakeholder approach to conservation
is one of YKBR’s goals under the MAB program. Effective governance should incorporate
1 Approximately 50 KGS are worth 1 CAD
97
understanding the emergence of new actors and their roles in governance as well as
coproducing knowledge from diverse sources (Armitage et al. 2012). However, according
to many informants, so far the YKBR has not been able to build cooperation with PAs
within the BR and with regional branches of other government institutions such as the State
Ecological Inspection Agency, the State Agency on Geology and Mineral Resources,
Ministry of Natural Resources, Ministry of Agriculture, Ministry of Tourism, Ministry of
Culture, and Ministry of Emergency Situations.
There is not much cooperation between government entities. They do
their own work, we do ours. Although I believe that if we cooperated,
conservation would have been more effective (Conservation manager,
pers. comm., 2014).
As a matter of fact, the Ysyk-Köl region is a popular venue for various cultural and
ecological events; however, the YKBR is often left out of them. For example, in summer
2015, Ysyk-Köl hosted the first World Games of Nomads, which gathered more than 400
athletes from 19 countries. Akthough these games were aimed at reviving the spiritual
consciousness and traditions of nomadic peoples of the world and showing their unity with
nature, the YKBR was hardly ever mentioned in spite of the fact that one of its goals is
preserving cultural diversity.
The YKBR has managed to build partnerships with some international nongovernmental
entities such as Global Ecological Fund (GEF), Nature and Biodiversity Conservation
Union (NABU), Snow Leopard Trust (SLT), and Asian Development Bank (ADB). While
some joint projects with the abovementioned non-state actors have been implemented,
YKBR managers have a rather distrustful attitude to local NGOs.
These local NGOs seem to be project dependent and their activity lack
sustainability in the sense that everything ends as soon as a project
98
shuts down. Local NGOs get funds to conduct some seminars and
round tables but these events do not have much impact on
conservation. Sometimes they invite us to those round tables, we go,
talk, have a coffee-break and then leave. Projects with more practical
implications for conservation are needed (Conservation manager, pers.
comm., 2014)
Stakeholders who are formally and informally involved in conservation practices in the
Biosphere Reserve (namely, government agencies, NGOs and local communities) seem to
be little aware of each other’s activities (Table 5.5).
Table 5.5 Informants’ responses to the question regarding the main stakeholders in
Biosphere Reserve conservation
Q: Who are the main stakeholders in
conservation?
Government
agencies
NGOs,
including
international
Local
communities and
sacred sites
Representatives
of the
interviewed
groups
Government
officials (n=23)
23 9 2
NGOs and local
scholars (n=11)
11 11 8
Local community
members (n=15)
15 5 12
Outdated approaches to public outreach. The YKBR has three main outlets for public
outreach: a) Ak-Kuu [lit. white swan] a quarterly newsletter, b) YKBR staff visits to
schools and meetings with local authorities, and c) public events such as March of Parks.
The Ak-Kuu newsletter aims to inform the public about activities in the YKBR. About
2,000 copies of the newsletter are published every three months.
The YKBR disseminates the newsletter through local authorities.
YKBR also target schools and other educational institutions. When the
YKBR staff goes out to expeditions, they always take copies of the
newsletter to give it to local communities (Conservation manager,
pers. comm. 2014).
When there is money in the YKBR budget, some staff members go on educational
expeditions and visit schools and universities in selected districts of the Ysyk-Köl region.
99
Almost every year, the YKBR participates in an international March of Parks (officially
known as International Days of Protected Areas and National Parks). These marches are
intended to raise public awareness of environmental issues.
However, the fact that many local people have little awareness of YKBR activities shows
that YKBR’s public outreach activities don’t cover large segments of the population. Some
informants pointed out the limitations of YKBR’s current public outreach strategies:
YKBR mostly distributes its newsletter among local authorities and
other governmental institutions. People who work in those institutions
may read it, but the vast majority of the population remains left out of
this outlet. As for public events, administrative leverages are used to
mobilize people. For example, YKBR or other parks may ask
universities to help mobilize students. Universities, in turn, simply
oblige some students (e.g., from ecology, biology, and geography
departments) to participate in the event. So even when mobilizing
people, they use a very top-down approach (NGO representative, pers.
comm., 2014).
YKBR managers pointed out that poor communication and little public outreach make it
harder for them to build trust with local communities. YKBR managers often lack
legitimacy in the eyes of local communities (Conservation manager, pers. comm., 2014).
Some conservation managers are advocating for using cell phones to take pictures of their
activities and submitting them as their work reports.
Locals think that the BR managers do not do any work and just
receive money. We are doing the best we can but people simply don’t
know about it. Once, some herders saw me putting out salt for the
wild ungulates and doing wildlife monitoring in the gorge nearby the
village. When I talked to them, they said ‘You are doing a good job!
We thought that you, conservation managers, just get paid. Now we
see that you are doing something.’ (Conservation manager, pers.
comm., 2014).
I was telling our rangers to buy a cell phone with a camera. And then
they can take pictures of the poachers they catch or of the wildlife they
see. Some rangers started doing it already. And then we can attach
100
these pictures to our reports, so everyone can see what is being done
(Conservation manager, pers. comm., 2014).
Indeed, using new media for public outreach seems to be a very logical and cheap option to
improve communication with local communities. As a matter of fact, the YKBR does not
have its own website, nor does it use social networks or existing environmental
communication platforms to disseminate information. A simple website for YKBR could
be a multi-faceted tool for both reaching out to the public and for involving local
communities in conservation activities such as wildlife and anti-poaching monitoring. Box
5.1 summarizes services and informational outlets that can improve YKBR’s public
outreach. Besides these new information-technology-based approaches, the YKBR could
use some traditional ‘communication hubs’ such as sacred sites (more detail in Chapter 6)
to disseminate information.
Box 5.1 Complementary public outreach outlets for the YKBR
Website. YKBR may create it is own website to enhance its public outreach. Creating and
maintaining a website is relatively cheap. As an alternative option, YKBR may create a
webpage within SAEPF’s website (http://www.nature.gov.kg/).
Social media. To enhance public awareness of its activities, the YKBR may create
accounts in the most popular social media platforms, such as:
o Facebook (www.facebook.com) is one of the most popular social networks with
over 1.18 billion monthly active users. Many institutions, agencies, and
international organizations working in nature conservation have Facebook pages.
Facebook would allow YKBR to reach out to the general public and establish
contacts with other conservation-focused actors.
o Odnoklassniki (www.odnoklassniki.ru) is a Russian social network service for
classmates and old friends, which is particularly popular in Kyrgyzstan. YKBR may
use this network to reach out to school students in the Ysyk-Köl region.
o Vkontakte (www.vk.com) is the largest Russian social network, which is popular
in a few post-Soviet Union countries such as Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, Kazakhstan
and Kyrgyzstan. This service can be used to disseminate information about YKBR
activities and establish contact with conservation institutions in post-Soviet Union
countries.
o Twitter (www.twitter.com) is a micro-blog social networking service with more
than 500 million users. Although this service is not very popular in Kyrgyzstan, it
can be used by YKBR to follow international conservation organizations such as
101
IUCN, WWF, etc.
o LinkedIn (www.linkedin.com) is a professional networking service, which is used
by more than 360 million users around the world. This outlet may be used to find
professionals for vacant job positions in the YKBR.
The YKBR can also use existing mailing lists and communication hubs such as:
o Ecological Information Center (www.ekois.net) works to enhance the capacity of
environmental NGOs in Kyrgyzstan by addressing environmental issues through
information, exchange of experience, and improved access to environmental
information
o Mountain Partnership Central Asia Hub ([email protected])
has an extensive mailing list.
o Climate Action Network of Kyrgyzstan (http://www.infoik.net.kg/) is a voluntary,
self-governing, non-profit network of social organizations focusing on environment
conservation and climate change adaptations. This network can be used by YKBR
to reach out to local NGOs.
5.5 Conclusion
YKBR has been facing challenges in biodiversity conservation such as ecosystem
degradation, decrease in biodiversity, and illegal use of resources (Baetov 2006). Some of
these challenges stem from large-scale processes such as climate change (Kojekov 2008),
glacier melting (Baetov 2006), and socio-economic fluctuations, whereas others are rooted
in YKBR’s top-down governance system (Ter-Ghazaryan and Heinen 2006). The CCRN
Governance Working Group has identified four key ingredients for successful governance
of complex social-ecological systems: a) the presence of ‘multi-level institutions’, b)
partnerships among state and non-state actors, c) appreciation of diverse perspectives and
knowledge, and d) shared learning and social processes that provide opportunities for
adaptability (CCRN 2015). In the case of the YKBR, multi-level institutions are in place;
however, the other three ‘key ingredients’ seem to be missing. Indeed, partnerships among
various stakeholders and rightsholders remain weak, traditional and local ecological
knowledge is not taken into account, and there are no platforms for shared learning. Indeed,
command and control approach to governance restricts YKBR’s ability to understanding
102
the emergence of new actors (such as sacred site guardians) and their roles in governance.
YKBR’s current level of decision making power and capacity does not fit the scale of
complex social-ecological systems present within the YKBR. I claimed that greater
decision making power would help YKBR to foster adaptiveness, flexibility, and learning
(for example, with updating YKBR zoning). More innovative approaches to public
outreach are likely to foster co-production of knowledge from various sources and meet
local communities’ expectations for accountability and legitimacy.
YKBR appears to be still employing old approaches to conservation, and the Soviet
conservation paradigm is still dominant (Ter-Ghazaryan and Heinen 2006). Although the
Soviet conservation paradigm itself is seen to be effective by the majority of informants, it
is acknowledged that socio-economic and environmental conditions have changed so much
that the Soviet paradigm is no longer effective. Thus, the current governance system in
YKBR seems to lack the capacity to match complex social-ecological systems in the
YKBR and adapt as these systems change over time. I claim that employing more
innovative, cutting edge approaches to conservation and using mechanisms rooted in local
culture (see Chapter 6) can contribute to YKBR’s capacity to meet UNESCO Biosphere
Reserve characteristics (Box 3.2, p.40) and help steer social-ecological systems in the
YKBR towards sustainability (CCRN 2015).
103
CHAPTER 6. SACRED SITES AS A TOOL FOR IMPROVING CONSERVATION IN
YSYK-KÖL BIOSPHERE RESERVE
6.1 Introduction
This is a synthesis chapter organized around Objective 3 ‘to examine whether sacred sites
can be used as an instrument for formal conservation, stewardship and governance in
Ysyk-Köl Biosphere Reserve.’ The chapter provides answers for such questions as: Is the
model of traditional conservation represented by sacred sites complementary or
contradictory to a formal conservation model? How can sacred sites improve conservation
within the YKBR? What is the motivation for conserving sacred sites? How can sacred
sites promote conservation in non-sacred sites? What are the potential limitations or
drawbacks in employing sacred sites to improve formal conservation?
Co-evolution of social and ecological systems (Berkes 2012) created institutions (rules and
norms) that regulate human behavior at sacred sites (Aitpaeva 2007). These institutions
include rules related to access and use (MacDonald 2003) and site-specific taboos
(Verschuuren et al. 2010, Premauer and Berkes 2012, Premauer 2013). Sacred sites around
the world are known to contribute to biodiversity conservation both directly and indirectly.
Direct conservation is feasible in cases where sacred sites are large enough to be a
sufficient habitat for certain species, such as sacred groves in India (Ramakrishnan et al.
1998). Schaaf and Lee (2006) concluded that restrictions and taboos on sacred sites related
to access and use, and acceptable human behavior and practice may result in conserving
important refuge for different species. Traditional institutions such as supernatural
sanctions for improper behavior (Aitpaeva et al. 2007, Aitpaeva 2010, Premauer and
104
Berkes 2012) can be effective in enforcing resource use regulations (Tengö et al. 2007) on
sacred sites.
When sacred sites are not large enough to have direct conservation value, they can
contribute to conservation by maintaining and fostering ties between communities and their
environments (Ramakrishnan et al. 1998, Verschuuren et al. 2010), which increases the
likelihood of effective conservation. Moreover, traditional institutions related to sacred sites
can link biological and cultural diversity conservation. Four ‘bridges’, namely beliefs and
worldviews, practices and livelihoods, knowledge bases and languages, and norms and
institutions that link biodiversity and cultural diversity (Pretty et al. 2009) are present in
YKBR’s sacred sites.
Chapter 4 showed that sacred sites in the Ysyk-Köl region represent a community-based
conservation model which is geographically embedded in a formally protected Biosphere
Reserve. However, sacred sites are not taken into account in YKBR’s formal conservation
practices (Chapter 5). Considering the direct and indirect contribution of sacred sites to
biocultural diversity conservation (Ramakrishnan et al. 1998, Shaaf and Lee 2006), should
sacred sites in YKBR be incorporated into formal conservation practices in the YKBR?
Incorporating sacred sites and other community-conserved areas into formal conservation
has been a controversial issue. Borrini-Feyerabend et al. (2013) argue that in some PAs
formal governance approaches and customary governance patterns for managing
community-conserved areas (CCAs) may be complementary or contradictory to one
another. Recognition of CCAs by formal conservation (e.g., in the form of a legal act) may
limit local communities’ access to and control over the sacred sites and autonomy in
105
decision-making (Martin, pers.comm. 2014, Borrini et al. 2004, TILCEPA 2008). Newing
and Wahl (2004) point out that legal or any other type of government involvement in CCAs
is likely to diminish local communities’ autonomy in decision-making due to governmental
bureaucratic procedures. Legal recognition (and thus government involvement) of sacred
sites can undermine practices that constitute the strength of community conserved areas
(Kothari 1996, Martin et al. 2011, Robson and Berkes 2010). The controversy surrounding
government involvement in managing CCAs has been highlighted in a number of studies
around the world such as communal preserves in Peru (Newing and Wahl 2004), sacred
groves in northeastern Namibia (Sheridan 2009), mestizo community conserved areas in
Oxaca, Mexico (Martin et al. 2009), CCAs in northern Namibia (Hoole and Berkes 2010),
agdal gardens in Morocco (Martin, pers.comm., 2014). Still, government support can be
necessary to ensure the conservation of ICCAs, provided that stakeholders manage to build
effective means of collaboration (Brockington et al. 2008).
Recognizing intrinsic value of sacred sites, this chapter examines whether sacred sites as
community conserved areas (CCAs) can be used as an instrument for enhancing formal
conservation practices. It describes complementarity of formal conservation model
(represented by the YKBR) and community-based conservation (represented by sacred
sites). Then, the chapter highlights in nine points, main conclusions of the thesis regarding
the ways in which sacred sites can improve conservation within the YKBR, describe
varying motivations for conserving sacred sites and their limitations. This chapter does not
have a separate ‘Results’ section and mostly focuses on overall discussion and conclusions
of the thesis.
106
6.2 Two models of conservation: ways of reinforcing conservation in the
region Most of the sacred sites in YKBR are relatively small in size and contribute to biodiversity
conservation in an indirect way. That is why sacred sites as community-conserved areas
and formal conservation do not have competing interests, which makes these two models of
conservation complementary in nature. The major difference between these two models lies
in their governance systems: on sacred sites governance is predominantly bottom-up and
resemble institutions for managing commons (Rutte 2011), whereas the governance system
of the YKBR and the state reserves within it, is mostly top-down with little involvement of
local communities in decision-making and management (see Chapter 5).
From a conservation perspective, sacred sites may improve conservation practices in the
YKBR by: 1) making the concept of biosphere reserves more understandable for local
communities, 2) improving ecological monitoring, 3) indirectly conserving species and
areas, 4) improving BR zoning, 5) providing a complementary culture-rooted set of
incentives for conservation (in addition to rational incentives), 6) fostering a biocultural
approach to conservation, 7) collecting and using TEK in conservation, 8) serving as a
communication hub for YKBR managers and local communities, and 9) serving as a
platform for local communities’ capacity building.
6.2.1 Sacred sites as a tool for communicating the concept of BRs. YKBR managers
pointed out that local people’s knowledge and understanding of the YKBR’s mission and
goals are low (see Chapter 5). This lack of understanding leads to lack of legitimacy of
formal conservation mostly manifested as local communities’ poor cooperation and
collaboration with the YKBR managers. The concept of sacred site can be used to explain
107
the notion of the ‘biosphere reserve’ to local people because these two concepts have
several elements in common. Moreover, if the YKBR starts recognizing sacred sites in
formal conservation strategies, then YKBR will become more meaningful in local people’s
eyes because YKBR will be also protecting what is culturally important for local
communities. The closer comparison of the Biosphere Reserve (BR) concept and local
communities’ perception of sacred sites reveals similarities in three areas:
1. Reconciliation of livelihoods and conservation. The BR concept attempts to reconcile
conservation with social-economic development and livelihoods. Similarly, well-being of
sacred sites and local communities are seen as interconnected in traditional knowledge.
According to traditional beliefs, the social, economic, and personal well-being of
community members is directly related to protection of sacred sites. The more people care
about sacred sites, the more sacred sites bestow ‘kut’1 on the local community. Various
rituals and ceremonies related to economic, physical and psychological well-being of an
individual and communities are conducted on sacred sites.
2. Biocultural approach. BR concept emphasizes biocultural approach to conservation i.e.,
recognizes importance of both biological and cultural diversity. Sacred sites are biocultural
hybrids, meaning that besides a biophysical elements (tree, spring, rock, etc.), they include
cultural elements (i.e., a body of traditional knowledge, beliefs and practices). The
biophysical element traditional beliefs and practices associated with sacred sites are seen
holistically and are equally protected.
3. Idea of zoning. The BR concept’s key element is zoning (core area, buffer zone,
transition area) with certain rules applicable for each zone (UNESCO 2011). Sacred sites
1 Kut is a complex traditional concept which symbolizes well-being in general (including wealth, heavenly
grace, and happiness).
108
also have a set of rules and taboos (Aitpaeva 2007, Premauer and Berkes 2012).Some
sacred sites have a kind of zoning: the core element of the site is strictly protected, the area
around the core element is ‘allocated’ for conducting rituals. Some sacred sites have
‘tulookana’ - housekeeping premises where pilgrims can conduct sacrifices and cook their
food.
6.2.2 Sacred sites can be used as checkpoints for local ecological monitoring. Sacred
sites are diverse and cover patches of various ecosystems (Table 4.1 in Chapter 4). Given
that sacred sites are deliberately conserved by local communities and are least disturbed by
livelihood activities, the ecological monitoring information gathered at sacred sites can be
used as a baseline for assessing the health of the entire ecosystem. The YKBR staff is not
large enough to do a comprehensive monitoring throughout the biosphere reserve.
Collecting information at sacred sites can help to fill the gap in monitoring data. It can also
serve as a tool for enhancing local communities’ participation in the YKBR’s activities by
involving them in ecological monitoring.
6.2.3 Indirect conservation. A network of about 130 community-conserved sacred sites in
YKBR indirectly contributes to overall conservation by preserving species of plants and
geophysical formations located at the sacred sites. The size of most sacred sites is not large
enough to be a viable habitat for wildlife. However, some studies show that sacred sites can
be incorporated into wildlife matrix zones (mini reserves) which are being proposed as an
innovative approach for protecting the environment and reconciling local communities
livelihood needs in YKBR (Box 6.1) (Wunderlich et al.2014).
109
Box 6.1. Wildlife matrix zones (mini reserves). Adapted form Wunderlich et al. (2014,
p. 33-35)
Wildlife matrix zones, also micro reserves or micro zapovedniks, are innovative approaches
to support natural succession processes and to rehabilitate local hotspots of biodiversity.
The approach combines these prior targets with the maintenance of local population needs.
[…] In the center of interest is the unaffected development of a natural habitat that still
represents the typical features, as for instance soil condition, species, vegetation
community, genetic varieties of a species, micro climate and so on. The size and location of
the wildlife matrix zones need to be sufficiently large to comply with environmental
objectives. […] The wildlife matrix zone functions then as a genetic pool and source for
distribution of seeds, pollen, pollinators, and rhizomes into neighboring human-affected
territories (the restoration zone). Forest plantations with natural species facilitate the
rehabilitation of habitats and function as additional migration corridors at the same time –
ecologic corridors. […] The protection of the wildlife matrix zone and the restoration zone,
as well as the forest plantations or re-vegetation areas (where eligible) should be provided
by the local population in their own interest (functioning of ecosystem services and access
and benefit sharing). Environmental and cultural functions can also serve the nature
conservation target especially in the area of investigation. For instance holy places (not
bolded in the original text) can serve as a very strong incentive to protect a site.
[…] The approach includes the general and broad idea of the Seville strategy and can be
understood as a mini biosphere reserve in the biosphere reserve itself. It is also a testing site
that is innovative and could be expanded within the biosphere reserve or even into other
areas worldwide if successful.
110
6.2.4 Improving Biosphere Reserve zoning (network of sacred sites). In Chapter 5, it
was mentioned that YKBR’s current zoning system is outdated. YKBR has plans to update
and reconsider zoning to make it better fit current ecological conditions and local
communities’ needs. Since local people conduct pilgrimages and perform rituals on sacred
sites, I claim that sacred sites should be taken into account while updating YKBR zoning to
ensure local communities access to their sacred sites. This will prevent possible conflicts
between conservation managers and local communities in the future.
6.2.5 Sacred sites provide a complementary culture-rooted set of incentives for
conservation. Formal conservation strategies mostly appeal to resource users’ reason by
emphasizing rational incentives for preserving the environment. For example, formal
conservation uses the notions of ecosystem health, species’ instrumental value, food-chains,
and costs and benefits of conservation (Conservation manager, pers. comm., 2014).
We wish that our state was wealthy and strong enough to enforce the
laws and use some market-based instruments for promoting
conservation in addition to enforcement. That would have made
conservation way more effective (Conservation manager, pers. comm.,
2014).
Top-down investment instruments (which are used by a number of governments and
environmental NGOs) have been successful in some cases (Sodhi et al. 2011) and
unsuccessful in others (Acheson 2006, Rokström et al. 2009). Likewise, market-based
instruments that place a monetary value on ecosystem goods and services (Rosales 2006,
Rands et al. 2010) work relatively well in some cases, for example, carbon trade (Hepburn
2007); while in other cases they lead to the exploitation of natural resources (Demeritt
2001, Hobbs and Harris 2001, Van Houtan 2010). To address the shortcomings of existing
instruments, scholars have been examining possibilities for complementary means that
111
would focus on shaping people’s ethical attitudes and would promote more pro-
environmental thinking and lifestyles (Tilman 2000, Van Houtan 2006). For example,
Mikusinski et al. (2013) argue for a greater role of religions in biodiversity discourse, since
religions shape people’s and communities’ basic beliefs and can ethically influence
people’s behavior.
Sacred sites influence and shape people’s behavior by fostering spiritual and intangible ties
between people and the environment (Verschuuren 2010), thus appealing to ‘heart-induced’
incentives, that is, to intuitive, emotional, spiritual, belief-based incentives for conservation
(Anderson 1996). For example, the notion of sacredness implies that sacred sites in
particular and the environment in general are inhabited by guardian-spirits. These spirits
bring prosperity and repel misfortunes when people treat nature with due respect and care.
These spiritual, belief-based incentives complement and reinforce rational incentives for
conservation, thus nurturing a caring attitude to nature through the notion of sacredness.
Usually acknowledging that ‘sacredness’ may be a good reason for local communities to
preserve sacred sites per se, conservation managers often ask how sacred sites can promote
conservation on ‘non-sacred’ sites? Traditional practitioners point out two mechanisms by
which the notion of sacredness may promote people’s caring attitude to the environment as
a whole:
1. Groups of sacred sites in Kyrgyzstan and around the world are interconnected
(spiritually and transcendentally) and are perceived as networks (Aitpaeva, 2013).
These smaller networks are interconnected among themselves and make up a ‘sacred
network’ that covers the whole planet. Sacred sites mark the power-whorls of that
network, but the network also consists of all the territories which are in between sacred
112
sites. Thus, the fact that the whole network is sacred makes all lands and waters
covered by it sacred as well. That is how the notion of ‘sacredness’ may motivate
people to treat ‘non-sacred’ sites with great respect.
2. Local communities’ understanding of the source of sacred sites’ sanctity is based on
two intertwined notions: a) all lands and waters intrinsically have ‘sacredness’ in them
and have ee, a guardian spirit and b) people’s attitude to and interaction with sacred
places affect the sanctity of that place. Sacredness is perceived not as something rigidly
fixed but rather as dynamic; sacredness can ‘migrate’ from one place to another.
Sacred sites can lose their sacredness and new sacred sites can emerge. The emergence
of sacred sites is documented in other parts of the world as well (Verschuuren et al.
2010).
‘Migration’ of sacredness implies that if the local community does not take good care
of a sacred site, its sacredness may migrate to a 'better place.' If a site loses its
sacredness, it consequently loses its spiritual and ritual powers (to heal, to grant
wishes, etc.). Thus, local communities are interested in taking good care of sacred sites,
which is an additional incentive for conservation. The belief that new sacred sites can
emerge may motivate people to treat all lands and waters with great care, because all
lands are potential places where sacredness can emerge.
For example, traditional practitioners’ attitude to mountains illustrates how ‘non-sacred’
sites can be treated with great respect as if they were sacred. There are several mountains in
the YKBR which are considered sacred, e.g., Khan Tengir and Tastar Ata Mountains.
Although not all the mountains are sacred according to local beliefs, there is a notion that
all the mountains should be treated with great respect.
113
Mountains are up high. Being on elevated places, one gets pure
thoughts. Only a few people (such as herders or geologists) actually
go high into the mountains; there are no idle people. Mountain tops
are pure places because few people set foot on them. I personally
do not go onto the very top of the mountain. When I do pilgrimage
to sacred mountains, I go only to the side of it and almost never set
my foot on top of the mountain. Just like we do not let the strangers
who come to your home to enter into our personal spaces, one
should not go directly to the top of the mountain; otherwise one
will suffer the consequences. The person coming to a sacred site
should have done ablution, have straight and pure intentions.
(Traditional practitioner, pers. comm. 2014)
Mountains are sacred. Indeed, many Holy Scriptures were
bestowed on mountains, for instance, the Old Testament was given
on Sinai Mountain, while the Quran was given on Arafat Mountain.
It was by Allah’s power that sacred sites are connected to beautiful
places. One of the responsibilities of the sacred site guardians is to
preserve that beautiful nature on sacred sites. Mountains are the
wonder that was given to the Kyrgyz people by nature. It was not a
coincidence that our kalpak’s [traditional felt hat] and yurt’s shape
resemble that of mountains. We should respect and take care of all
mountains because they are a precious gift for us (Abdrasul ake,
guardian of Padysha-Ata sacred site, pers. comm. 2014).
6.2.6 Sacred sites can foster biocultural approach to conservation. In Chapter 5, I stated
that YKBR’s conservation strategies mostly focus on biodiversity conservation, although
one of the BR’s statutory goals is the integration of biological and cultural diversity
conservation. Pilgrimage to sacred sites is a part of traditional local culture and sacred sites
have a vast body of traditional knowledge, beliefs, and practices associated with them
(Aitpaeva 2009). Recognition of sacred sites by YKBR can foster a biocultural approach to
conservation in the YKBR and thus contribute to meeting the reserve’s statutory goals.
6.2.7 Sacred sites as hubs for collecting and using TEK in conservation. UNESCO
Biosphere Reserves emphasize the role of TEK in biocultural diversity conservation
(UNESCO, 2011). Sacred sites are often the places where TEK is transmitted through
114
stories, rituals and ceremonies (Aitpaeva, pers. comm. 2014). TEK can complement
scientific knowledge in conservation strategy planning (Berkes 2012). However, TEK is
not being taken into account in YKBR’s conservation strategies. Since the YKBR may not
have the financial resources to collect local TEK through extensive surveys in local
communities, sacred sites can be used as hubs for collecting TEK and further incorporating
TEK in formal conservation.
6.2.8 Sacred sites as a communication platform for Ysyk-Köl Biosphere Reserve
managers and local communities. In Chapter 5, it was mentioned that YKBR’s public
outreach outlets fail in covering the general public. Besides using new media for improving
public outreach, YKBR can use sacred sites as a platform for communicating with local
communities. Pilgrims and local communities share knowledge and information with one
another, and conduct ceremonies and rituals which are connected to their everyday lives
and livelihoods. There is a widespread informal communication network among pilgrims as
well as sacred site guardians. These informal communication channels may be employed by
conservation managers to disseminate information among local communities. Such
communication channels can also work the other way and local communities may
communicate their knowledge, concerns and opinions to conservation managers. Thus,
sacred sites can serve as broad communication platforms for linking formal and informal
conservation and improving communication between local communities and YKBR
managers.
6.2.9 Capacity-building for communities on sacred sites. In some communities, sacred
sites serve to foster ties between community members through traditional ways of self-help
115
(Sadur uulu, pers. comm.). This self-organizing capacity of sacred sites can be used to build
up local communities’ capacity for co-managing resources in the BR. At the same time,
effective co-management requires that government institutions also have the necessary
capacity (Pomeroy and Berkes, 1997). I claim that a number of events for bringing together
YKBR managers, sacred site guardians and local community members should be organized
to enrich these stakeholders’ knowledge about each other.
6.3 Limitations on employing sacred sites in formal conservation
Chapter 4 discussed the cultural and institutional elements of sacred sites in the Ysyk-Köl
region, which make them community conserved areas. Further analysis of local
communities’ motivation for preserving sacred sites provides insights into limitations on
employing sacred sites in formal conservation. Local people’s motivation for conserving
sacred sites comes as a combination of reward and penalty-based incentives:
Reward-based incentives are based on the notion that if one treats sacred sites
properly and with due respect, one gets spiritual and well-being related benefits
such as a cure from illness, wealth, and success in career and life, etc.
Penalty-based incentives are based on the notion that if one violates sacredness,
one will suffer retaliation in the form of illness, misfortune, and even death.
Local communities in YKBR are not homogeneous in terms of their belief and values
systems. Motivation for conserving sacred sites differs among social subgroups based on
their attitude towards sacred sites. The sacredness of a site can be both the main reason for
conservation and a reason for vulnerability/destruction, depending on the person’s or
community’s stance on the scale below (Figure 6.1).
116
Various subgroups
Sacred site
guardians and active
supporters (pilgrims)
Moderate supporters Moderate non-
supporters
Ardent opponents
(mostly represented
by fundamentalist
Muslims)
Sacred site guardians are the people who voluntarily look after particular sacred sites as
their spiritual calling. It should be noted that there may be some debate about the
‘voluntariness’ of people becoming sacred site guardians. As a matter of fact, many sacred
site guardians say that invisible forces made them become custodians (Aitpaeva 2007).
Sacred site guardians have even stronger incentives for preserving sacred sites because they
see preservation of sacred sites as their personal mission and as one of the main goals in
their lives:
My life was very complicated. I had many health problems, no
meaning in life. When I became a guardian of this sacred site, I felt
like I found myself, my calling and mission in this life (A sacred
site guardian, pers. comm., 2014).
I saw an ayan (dream) in which a sacred site was calling for me. It
said that it was being polluted and neglected. I woke up in the
morning and set off to look for that site. I did not know where it is
located, I knew what it looks like as I saw it in a dream. I travelled
through a dozen villages but could not find it. At last, after asking
local villagers, I found a big willow tree. It turned out that the
sewage ditch from one house was bringing dirty water to it. I
cleaned it up and told the members of that household that they
need to divert the ditch. They agreed to do so but apparently they
did not divert it. A month later a mother of the family got
paralyzed and the husband came to me asking to heal her. I said
that I cannot and that they should divert the ditch away from a
sacred site. After that they did so and the woman recovered (A
traditional practitioner, pers. comm., 2014).
Positive attitude to sacred sites Negative attitude to sacred sites
Figure 6.1 Scale of social subgroups based on their attitude to sacred sites
117
Active supporters (pilgrims) are those people who conduct pilgrimages to sacred sites on a
regular basis and conduct rituals and ceremonies there. Pilgrims preserve and care for
sacred sites because they believe that pilgrimage to sacred sites can improve their well-
being, their health, and provide whatever they are in need of (Table 4.2 in Chapter 4). At
the same time, pilgrims are aware of sanctions for violating the rules when visiting sacred
sites. Thus for this social subgroup both reward-based and penalty-based incentives for
preserving sacred sites are in place.
People go to sacred sites being in need for something. If pilgrims
observe the rules and behave respectfully towards the site their wishes
will be granted. If someone mistreats a sacred site, i.e., pollutes it,
breaks or damages something that is there, then that person will face
retaliation in a form of disease and suffering. Sometimes retaliation
may come to a violator through his/her children, who would either
turn out bad or be sick (Local villager, pers. comm., 2014)
Moderate supporters are those people who are aware of sacred sites and agree with the
main principles and beliefs associated with them. This subgroup may not be actively
Plate 21. Pilgrims on Manjyly-Ata sacred site (Credit Aigine)
118
involved in conducting pilgrimages and rituals. However, the notion of retaliation for
violating the sanctity of sacred sites prevents them from damaging those sites:
Our ancestors used to worship sacred sites but now we don’t. There is
a sacred site with a spring and a few willow trees nearby our village.
We know it is sacred and that whoever mistreats it will get sick or
even die. Back in the day during the Soviet times, some Russian
tractor drivers tried to cut down the sacred tree. First, their tractor
broke down several times while they were trying to cut it. But they
did not stop and they started seeing some things and hearing voices.
They got scared and ran away leaving all their equipment. That is
why even now, no one tries to cut its branches for wood (Local
villager, pers. comm., 2014).
Moderate non-supporters are those people who neither support nor oppose the practice of
visiting sacred sites. Some representatives of this subgroup believe visiting sacred sites is a
remnant of old, animistic religion. For this subgroup, sacred sites are ‘just regular’ sites.
thus, moderate non-supporters have no special incentive for conservation of these sites.
Worshipping trees or boulders is a superstition that stayed from the
times of ancient men. People were afraid of the power of nature and
that is why they would worship it. And even now some people believe
in it. How can a so called ‘sacred’ tree help you with your business? It
is just a tree (Local villager, pers. comm., 2014).
Ardent opponents of sacred sites are those people who see sacred sites as a negative
phenomenon. This subgroup is mostly represented by radicalized Muslims who see sacred
sites as a threat to purity of religion. Some representatives of this subgroup simply
condemn/discourage others who conduct pilgrimages to sacred sites, whereas some take
action to destroy sacred sites.
We have a sacred spring not far away from a road. Some people tie
strips of cloth on the bushes around this spring. A few months ago, a
group of villagers including me were standing nearby the spring and
talking. And we saw a man in a Pakistani style outfit walking along
the road. When he saw a bush with the strips of cloth, he came to us
and asked whether we have an axe. He wanted to cut down a tree. I
asked him why he is going to do it if other people hold it sacred. He
119
replied that it is a sin to worship sacred sites. None of us gave him an
axe and he continued on his way. (A villager, pers. comm., 2014)
In our village we had a sacred spring. People who thought that going
to sacred sites was a sin, destroyed it. They say that worshipping
anything else but Allah is the greatest unforgiveable sin (A local
villager, pers. comm., 2014).
Going to sacred sites is idolatry. The prophet destroyed the idols in
Mecca. We should tell people that going to sacred sites is a big sin
because they worship a spring, a tree or a boulder instead of Allah. If
they don’t understand, then these idols should be destroyed (A local
villager, pers. comm., 2014).
Opponents of the tradition of visiting sacred sites see pilgrimage to sacred sites as a great
sin called shirk, that is attributing partners to Allah (Samakov, field notes, 2014).
Pilgrimage to sacred sites violates the core principle of Islam, namely tawhid - the
‘Oneness of God’ (strict monotheism) (A villager, pers. comm., 2014).
The majority of people visiting sacred sites associate themselves with Islam. Pilgrims claim
that visiting sacred sites is a legitimate part of traditional Islam, which has been practiced in
the region for many centuries. Sacred site guardians and pilgrims note that opponents of
sacred sites are predominantly the followers of ‘newly imported fundamentalist Islamic
movements’ (as opposed to traditional Islam) that is, Islamic schools of thought and
movements that flooded the country after the collapse of the Soviet Union (Sacred site
guardian, pers. comm., 2014).
Contradictions about sacred sites between the representatives of so-called ‘imported Islam’
and ‘traditional Islam’ have to do with interpretations of Islam’s core principles. Both sides
seem to have theological evidence that supports their perspective. Although opinions
among local people vary, I have attempted to summarize a few main contention points and
respective responses regarding pilgrimage to sacred sites (Table 6.1).
120
Table 6.1 Local people’s main arguments for and against visiting sacred sites1
Arguments against visiting sacred sites Responses of traditional practitioners to
the arguments against sacred sites
By visiting sacred sites, one adds partners
to Allah by worshiping trees, stones, and
other elements of nature that are on sacred
sites. Muslims must revere and pray only
to Allah because it is only He who grants
wishes.
Muslims can pray to Allah from
anywhere; there is no need to go to special
‘sacred’ place. For collective prayers,
Muslims should go to the mosque, which
is ‘the house’ of Allah (Samakov, field
notes, 2014).
Pilgrims go to sacred sites to worship Allah
and not trees, springs or boulders. Allah has
created sacred sites and given them some
kasiet, a special power/capacity, so that
people can benefit. Allah is the greatest and
his greatness is not contested by smaller
powers He himself has created. For example,
gravitation is also a power Allah has created
but it does not undermine Allah’s power.
Similarly, kasiet of sacred sites does not
contradict the power of God but rather proves
it. Pilgrims revere Allah by visiting and
acknowledging the sanctity of sacred sites He
has created.
Sacred sites are pure and strong places where
pilgrims can focus and pray to God. Sacred
sites can be perceived as mosques under an
open sky.
Some people claim that Muslims should go to
mosques instead of sacred sites. Pilgrims do
go to mosques but they also go to sacred sites.
Mosques are built by men, whereas sacred
sites are created by God himself. So why
should mosques created by humans have more
value than sacred sites created by Allah? Both
sacred sites and mosques should be respected
and visited by Muslims.
Conducting pilgrimage to Mecca is one of the
five main requirements of Islam. During this
pilgrimage to Mecca, people visit sacred sites
such as Arafat mountain, Zamzam water, etc.
Allah created similar sacred sites in different
parts of the world and we should respect all
sacred sites just as we all respect those sacred
sites in Mecca. (Samakov, field notes, 2014).
1 This table is put together using the researcher’s field notes
121
Although people who go to sacred sites
may have an intention to worship Allah,
adding an intermediary such as an object
or a sacred site between a person and God
will eventually divert person’s attention
from God to that intermediary. Eventually,
pilgrims will forget about Allah and start
worshiping boulders or trees on sacred
sites and regard them as a deity. So even if
pilgrimage to sacred sites does not start as
idolatry, it is a path that leads to it.
(Samakov, field notes, 2014).
Although there is a chance that some pilgrims
may end up forgetting Allah and start
worshiping an object at a sacred site, this
cannot be a universal trend. Most pilgrims set
a pure and strong intention of praying to God
before going to sacred sites. As a matter of
fact, the chance that pilgrimage to sacred sites
may become idolatry, makes pilgrims to
ensure that they are setting pure intentions and
always worship Allah and not what is there on
a sacred site. (Samakov, field notes, 2014).
Not all pilgrims visiting sacred sites associate themselves with Islam. There are people who
are attempting to revive traditional pre-Islamic beliefs and practices (sacred sites being one
element). This group of people is generally referred to as Tengirchi, i.e., the followers of
Tengir, the supreme God. There have been several conflicts between representatives of
‘imported’ Islam and tengirchi; some conflicts made it to court but was never resolved. It
should be noted that the tengirchilik movement (the way it is now) is just as new to
Kyrgyzstan society as ‘imported’ Islamic movements. It is traditional Islam that combines
elements of both Islamic and pre-Islamic beliefs (Traditional practitioner, pers. comm.,
2014). For example, in traditional Islam the words for God such as Tenir, Kudai [God],
Allah, Jaratkan [Creator], Jaratuuchu [Creator] are used interchangeably.
Thus, there is diversity among local communities in the YKBR regarding their attitude to
sacred sites, which ranges from strong support to strong opposition. Sometimes conflicts
arise among these groups with different attitudes towards sacred sites. Frequently during
such conflicts, sacred sites become most vulnerable because they are not protected by
formal law.
122
Those radicals who say that visiting a sacred site is a sin think that
they can just destroy our sacred sites. That is how conflicts with them
start. At this point, sacred sites are not mentioned in any formal law,
which means that someone can do anything against them. For
example, if they [sacred site opponents] break a boulder at a sacred
site, we cannot take that person to court because there is not such a
clause in the Criminal or Administrative Code prohibiting violation of
sacred sites (Traditional practitioner, pers. comm., 2014).
6.4 Protection of sacred sites through formal law
As was mentioned earlier, sacred sites’ reward- and penalty-based conservation
mechanisms are limited to those who associate themselves with traditional beliefs. For
those who don’t support sacred sites, alternatives mechanisms should be in place, such as
formal laws on sacred sites. Aigine Cultural Research Center, a local NGO based in
Bishkek, along with sacred site guardians and other stakeholders has been lobbying for
legal recognition of sacred sites. Dr. Aitpaeva, Director of Aigine, (pers. comm., 2014)
pointed out that there have been attempts to get recognition for sacred sites in two ways: a)
drafting and lobbying for a Law (Act) on Sacred Sites and b) lobbying for amendments to
the existing Law on Protection and Use of Historical and Cultural Heritage (passed on June
29, 1999 № 91). As a result of these efforts, several versions of a draft law have been
developed with the participation of sacred site guardians, lawyers, and other stakeholders.
Sacred site guardians have passed several resolutions at their countrywide meetings, the
most recent of which took place in Bishkek in October 2014 (Appendix 2).
Traditional practitioners understand that government recognition of sacred sites can limit
communities’ autonomy in decision-making regarding these site. Indeed, government
involvement limit local communities rights over using their sacred sites in other regions of
the world (Martin et al. 2009, Hoole and Berkes 2010, Premauer 2013). Nonetheless,
123
almost sacred sites in Kyrgyzstan believe that legal recognition of sacred sites is needed
(see Appendix 2) to protect them from possible violators and to legally back local
communities’ rights for accessing and using these sites (Samakov, field notes, 2014).
Aitpaeva (pers. comm, 2014) points out that the main priority in lobbying for a law on
sacred sites in Kyrgyzstan is ensuring that provisions of such a law would be congruent
with and complementary to customary rules and traditions related to sacred sites.
124
CHAPTER 7. CONCLUSION
In this chapter, I will revisit research objectives and summarize key findings and insights
pertaining to each objective. I will also reiterate how SES lens helped to interpret and
understand the research findings and suggest topics for further research.
Objective 1 was to investigate what kinds of sacred sites exist and whether sacred sites are
being employed in existing governance and conservation strategies in Ysyk-Köl Biosphere
Reserve. The study findings show that sacred sites are diverse in terms of size and
biophysical elements. For example, a sacred site can be represented by a single element
such a spring, a tree, a boulder or it can be an entire ecosystem such as Ysyk-Köl Lake or
Khan Tenir Mountain. Sacred sites comprise a various types of vegetation (such as trees
and bushes), water bodies (such as lakes, ponds, and springs), rock formations (such as
mountains, cliffs, and boulders) and human made elements (such as tombs and other
structures).
Sacred sites are conserved by local communities via knowledge-practice-belief complex.
The core principles ensuring sacred site conservation are rooted in the body of traditional
ecological knowledge (TEK) in particular and indigenous knowledge in general. The rules
of visiting sacred sites and taboos stem from TEK and ensure direct and indirect
conservation of sacred sites. A traditional institution of sacred site guardians also
contributes to conservation. Sacred site guardians are people who voluntarily take a
responsibility of taking care of a particular sacred site. They see that responsibility as a
spiritual calling and do not formally get paid for serving as a guardian.
125
Linked social-ecological systems concept is congruent with how local people perceive,
understand and engage with sacred sites. At sacred there is no artificial separation between
social and ecological systems, or society and nature. People (re)establish and reinforce their
spiritual connection with land through rituals, ceremonies and beliefs. Indeed, sacred sites
serve as a good example of SES by showing mutual influence and co-evolution of human
societies and their environments.
Local communities’ worldviews and beliefs are what drive sacred site conservation by local
communities. Although sacred sites as CCAs in YKBR do not include purely biodiversity
conservation goals, they contribute to conservation by transmitting and promoting
conservation values and emphasizing the link between nature and culture as well as
between well-being of communities and their environments. The SES lens reveals that
sacred sites are the place where culture, nature and livelihoods are seen holistically by local
communities, which explains why sacred sites in YKBR do not have purely biodiversity
conservation goals.
The SES lens emphasizes importance of scale and levels (Berkes et al. 2003). Sacred sites
represent community-level conservation model rooted in local culture. All the sacred sites
in the Ysyk-Köl region are embedded into the Ysyk-Köl Biosphere Reserve (YKBR),
which represents conservation on a higher level. At this point sacred sites are not taken into
account in formal conservation. It can be explained by the fact that historically sacred sites
have never been supported by state institutions. Moreover, during Soviet era sacred sites
and pilgrims were prosecuted and suppressed. This lack of interaction between formal
126
government institutions and informal institutions such as sacred sites created ‘path
dependency’, which lead to no/little interaction at present time.
Objective 2 was to analyze the governance structure and current formal conservation
practices in Ysyk-Köl Biosphere Reserve. YKBR has been facing a number of challenges
in their effort to achieve their statutory goals such as a) reconciliation of environmental
conservation and economic development; b) conservation of both biological and cultural
diversity; and c) incorporation of various types of knowledge including TEK in decision-
making and planning. The major theme that emerged from the interviews and participatory
observation is that YKBR is viewed by local communities as token institution that does
paper conservation. More specific challenges include 1) frequent change in YKBR’s
institutional structure, 2) lack of highly skilled staff, 3) outdated and unclear zoning, 4) lack
of finance and 5) lack of interaction with local communities. Current conservation
approaches in YKBR displayed following distinctive features: 1) command and control
approach 2) core area based approach, 3) a biodiversity approach with a focus on species
diversity, 4) sanction-focused approach, 5) lack of cooperation among stakeholders, and 6)
outdated approaches to the public outreach.
Some key concepts from the SES approach provide insights to understand why YKBR can
be considered as paper conservation institution. For example, SES stresses the importance
of worldviews in conservation practices; however, sacred sites as part of local
communities’ worldviews are not taken into account in formal conservation.
Objective 3 was to examine whether sacred sites can be used as an instrument for formal
conservation, stewardship and governance in Ysyk-Köl Biosphere Reserve. Thus, these two
127
models of conservation, sacred sites on one hand and Biosphere Reserve on the other hand,
co-exist on the same territory; however they barely interact. The study results show that
sacred sites in the YKBR, as a model of local community-based conservation, are
complementary to formal conservation. Moreover, sacred sites can improve formal
biocultural conservation in a number of ways, which include improving ecological
monitoring and zonation in the YKBR, enhancing communication and mutual
understanding with local communities and providing more legitimacy for formal
conservation.
The current study showed that incorporation of sacred sites can improve biocultral
conservation in YKBR in nine ways: 1) making the concept of Biosphere Reserves more
understandable for local communities, 2) improving ecological monitoring, 3) indirectly
conserving species and areas, 4) improving BR zoning, 5) providing a complementary
culture-rooted set of incentives for conservation (in addition to rational incentives), 6)
fostering biocultural approach to conservation, 7) collecting and using TEK in
conservation, 8) serving as a communication hub for YKBR managers and local
communities, and 9) serving as a platform for local communities’ capacity building.
Stakeholders in YKBR realize that effective conservation should employ a variety of
conservation instruments. Conventional sanctions-based instruments for conservation have
been complemented by a number of market-based instruments (e.g., 30% of fines for
poaching are transferred to conservation managers as a bonus reward). Literature review
showed that market-based instruments for conservation around the world are effective in
some cases (Sodhi et al. 2011, Rosales 2006, Rands et al. 2010) but ineffective in others
128
(Demeritt 2001, Hobbs and Harris 2001, Acheson 2006, Van Houtan 2010). To address the
shortcomings of existing instruments, scholars have been examining possibilities for
complementary means that would focus on shaping people’s ethical attitudes and would
promote more pro-environmental thinking, lifestyles, and ethics (Tilman 2000, Van Houtan
2006, Mikusinski et al. 2013). Sacred sites in YKBR appear to be an effective instrument
for shaping people’s environmental ethics and thinking by providing culture-based
complementary ‘heart-induced’ incentives for conservation (in addition to rational
incentives). Sacred sites as a tool for conservation appeal to people’s ‘hearts’ (Anderson
1996) as opposed to sanctions and market-based incentives that appeal to peoples’ ‘minds
and reason.’
The concept of UNESCO Biosphere Reserve emphasizes the importance of linking
biological and cultural diversity conservation (UNESCO 2011). A biocultural approach to
conservation recognizes the interrelation, co-evolution, and interdependence of biological
and cultural diversity within complex social-ecological systems (Maffi and Woodley 2010).
It emphasizes that human beings have always been an intrinsic part of nature and have been
modifying their environment throughout history (Maffi 2001, Gunderson and Holling 2002,
Heckenberger et al. 2007, Pretty et al. 2007). Likewise, the environment has affected and
shaped human cultures (Maffi and Woodley 2010) within intrinsically linked and
interconnected adaptive social-ecological systems (Berkes et al. 2003, Berkes 2012).
Sacred sites lend themselves well to bridging cultural and biological diversity conservation,
which are currently disconnected in YKBR’s conservation strategy.
129
However, sacred sites are not cure-all. Sacred sites should not be seen as a panacea for all
biocultural diversity conservation challenges in the YKBR. Conservation incentives
induced by sacred sites and social institutions related to those sites are limited to groups of
people who share traditional beliefs and value systems. Local people within the YKBR are
diverse. Based on their attitudes regarding sacred sites, various groups can be placed on a
spectrum with strong supporters (sacred site guardians and traditional practitioners) at one
end, and strong opponents (predominantly fundamentalist Islamic groups) on the other end.
The majority of the population is likely to be somewhere in between these polar opposites.
Despite some limitations, sacred sites appear to be an effective complementary tool for
improving conservation in the YKBR. Traditional knowledge, beliefs and practices related
to sacred sites nurture a caring attitude to the environment through the notion of sacredness
(Oviedo and Jeanrenaud 2007). To employ sacred sites for improving conservation within
the Ysyk-Köl Biosphere Reserve, a plan should be developed to recognize sacred sites as
community conserved areas. This recognition could be done in the form of legislation
which recognizes sacred sites and leaves enough governance ‘space’ for local communities
to practice their traditions (Samakov and Berkes, in press). Recognition of sacred sites will
allow potentially linking of formal and informal models of conservation within the YKBR
and protecting sacred sites from intruders intending to damage them.
Sacred sites are not limited to the territory of the YKBR. As a matter of fact, there are more
than 1,100 documented sacred sites across Kyrgyzstan (Aitpaeva 2013). Thus, the current
research findings regarding sacred sites’ contribution to biocultural conservation can be
generalized to other protected areas in Kyrgyzstan, as well as to ‘non-protected’ areas.
130
Given that sacred sites around the world have similarities in their institutional structure,
rules of use and taboos (Vershuuren et al. 2010), the current study provides new evidence
on sacred sites’ contribution to biocultural diversity conservation.
As a possibility for future research I would highlight three potentially interesting and
understudied topics. First topic is tourism on sacred sites. As mentioned in Chapter 4, some
sacred site guardians see tourism as a tool for a) educating people about sacred sites and
their importance, b) as a source for improving livelihoods of local villagers around sacred
sites through providing services to pilgrims and c) some practitioners perceive sacred sites
as global commons, as places of power given not only to people of Kyrgyzstan but to the
entire humanity. At the same time, there are concerns that poorly organized tourism can
undermine the sanctity of sacred sites and lead to kasiet kachuu, the loss of sacredness.
Thus, analyzing sustainable ways of organizing tourism on sacred sites can be a potential
research topic. Second, there are some emergent social movements such as Ata-Jolu (Box
4.1) which place pilgrimage to sacred sites at the core of their worldview. Such social
movements remain largely under investigated. Research could provide some insights on
modern social functions of sacred sites. And last but not least, the notion of sacred site
networks requires more attention. According to traditional beliefs, the networks of sacred
sites vary in size, and some of them are of global nature. The network of sacred sites is
somewhat similar to global networks of PAs such World Network of Biosphere Reserves.
The comparative analysis of these networks of formal and informal protected areas can
provide more insights on improving conservation within and outside of formally protected
areas.
131
REFERENCES
Acheson, J. (2006). Institutional failure in resource management. Annual Review of
Anthropology, 35, 117–134.
Aitpaeva, G. (2006). The Phenomenon of sacred sites in Kyrgyzstan: interweaving of
mythology and reality. Conserving Cultural and Biological Diversity: The Role of
Sacred Natural Sites and Cultural Landscapes. United Nations Educational,
Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). Paris, 1, 118-123.
Aitpaeva, G. (Ed.). (2009). Sacred Sites of Ysyk-Köl: Spiritual Powers, Pilgrimage, and
Art. Aigine Cultural Research Center, Bishkek.
Aitpaeva, G. (Ed). (2013). Sacred Sites of the Southern Kyrgyzstan: Nature, Manas, Islam.
Aigine Cultural Research Center, Bishkek.
Aitpaeva, G., Egemberdieva, A., & Toktogulova M. (Eds.). (2007). Mazar worship in
Kyrgyzstan: rituals and practitioners in Talas. Aigine Cultural Research Center,
Bishkek.
Alamanov, A., & Mikkola, H. (2011). Is biodiversity friendly fisheries management
possible on Issyk-Kul Lake in the Kyrgyz Republic?. Ambio, 40(5), 479-495.
Anderies, J., Janssen, M., & Ostrom E. (2004). A framework to analyze the robustness of
social-ecological systems from an institutional perspective. Ecology and
Society, 9(1), 18.
Anderson, E. N. (1996). Ecologies of the Heart. New York: Oxford University Press.
Anfara, V., Brown, K., & Mangione, T. (2002). Qualitative analysis on stage: Making the
research process more public. Educational Researcher, 31(7), 28-38.
Armitage, D., de Loë, R., & Plummer, R. (2012). Environmental governance and its
implications for conservation practice. Conservation Letters, 5(4), 245-255.
Atkinson, P., & Coffey, A. (2004). Analyzing documentary realities. In D. Silverman (Ed.),
Qualitative Research: Theory, Method and Practice (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Atkinson, R., & Flint, J. (2001). Accessing hidden and hard-to-reach populations: snowball
research strategies. Social Research Update, 33, 2–3.
Baetov R. (2006). Lake Issyk-Kul. Experience and Lessons Learned Brief. World Bank.
Bassey, M. (1999). Case Study Research in Educational Settings. McGraw-Hill
International.
132
BBC. Kyrgyzstan profile. URL: http://goo.gl/s2s6cb. Retrieved on April 16, 2014.
Berg, B. L., & Lune, H. (2004). Qualitative Research Methods for the Social Sciences.
Boston: Pearson.
Berkes, F. (2007). Community-based conservation in a globalized world. Proceedings of
the National Academy of Sciences, 104 (39): 15188-15193.
Berkes, F. (2009). Community conserved areas: policy issues in historic and contemporary
context. Conservation Letters, 2(1), 20-25.
Berkes, F. (2012). Sacred Ecology. 3rd
Edition, New York: Routledge.
Berkes, F. & C. Folke. (2002). Back to the future: Ecosystem dynamics and local
knowledge. In: Gunderson L and Holling C. (Eds). (2002). Panarchy:
Understanding Transformations in Human and Natural Systems. Washington, DC:
Island.
Berkes, F., Colding, J., & Folke, C. (2000). Rediscovery of traditional ecological
knowledge as adaptive management. Ecological Applications, 10(5), 1251-1262.
Berkes, F., Colding, J., & Folke, C. (Eds.). (2003). Navigating Social-Ecological Systems:
Building Resilience for Complexity and Change. Cambridge University Press.
Bernard, R. (2011). Research Methods in Anthropology. Oxford University Press.
Biermann, F., Pattberg, P., Van Asselt, H., & Zelli, F. (2009). The fragmentation of global
governance architectures: A framework for analysis. Global Environmental
Politics, 9(4), 14-40.
Borrini, G., Kothari A., & Oviedo, G. (2004). Indigenous and local communities and
protected areas: Towards equity and enhanced conservation: Guidance on policy
and practice for co-managed protected areas and community conserved areas.
IUCN. (No. 11). Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. xviii + 111pp.
Borrini-Feyerabend, G., Dudley, N., Jaeger, T., Lassen, B., Broome,P. Phillips A. &
Sandwith T. (2013). Governance of Protected Areas: From Understanding to
Action. Best Practice Protected Area Guidelines Series No. 20, Gland,
Switzerland: IUCN.
Bowen, G. A. (2009). Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qualitative
Research Journal, 9(2), 27-40.
133
Brockington, D., Duffy, R. & Igoe J. (Eds). (2008). Nature Unbound: Conservation,
Capitalism and the Future of Protected Areas. London: Earthscan.
Cameron J. (2008). Focusing on focus groups. In Hay, I. (2008). Qualitative Research
Methods in Human Geography. Oxford University Press.
CBD. (2004). CBD Decision VII.28, paragraph 17, Kuala Lumpur.
CCRN (2013). Community Conservation Research Network. Summary for partnership and
activity. St. Mary University, Nova Scotia.
CCRN (2015). SES and Governance. Social-ecological systems guidelines. URL:
http://goo.gl/155sBj (Accessed on May 15, 2015).
ICCA Consrotium. (2015). Indigenous peoples’ and community conserved areas and
territories (ICCAs): a bold frontier for conservation. URL: www.iccaforum.org
(Accessed on May 15, 2015).
Cohen, L., Manion, L. & Morrison, K. (2007) Research Methods in Education. London:
Routledge.
Colding, J., & Folke C. (2001). Social taboos: invisible systems of local resource
management and biological conservation. Ecological Applications, 11 (2), 584-
600.
Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (Eds.). (2008). Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and
Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Creswell, D. & Miller D. (2000). Determining validity in qualitative inquiry. Theory into
Practice, 39(3),124-131.
Creswell, J. (2009). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods
Approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
De Batist, M., Imbo, Y., Vermeesch, P., Klerkx, J., Giralt, S., Delvaux, Lignier, V., Beck,
C., Kalugin, I. & Abdrakhmatov, K. (2002). Bathymetry and sedimentary
environments of Lake Issyk-Kul, Kyrgyz Republic (Central Asia): a large, high-
altitude, tectonic lake. In Lake Issyk-Kul: Its Natural Environment. Klerkx, J.
&Imanackunov B. (Eds.). NATO Science Series, IV Earth and Environmental
Sciences - Vol. 13. Kluwer Academic Publishers, 101-125.
Demeritt, D. (2001) The construction of global warming and the politics of science. Annals
of the Association of American Geographers, 91, 307–337.
134
Doherty, M. (1994). Probability versus non-probability sampling in sample surveys. The
New Zealand Statistics Review, 4, 21-28.
Dompke, S., & Musina, D. (2004). The call of our ancestors: natural sacred sites in the
Issyk-Kul Biosphere territory. German Society for Technical Cooperation (GTZ).
Bishkek.
Dudley, N. (2008). Guidelines for Applying Protected Area Management Categories,
IUCN, Gland, Switzerland.
Dudley, N., Higgins-Zogib, L., & Mansourian, S. (2005). Beyond belief: Linking faiths and
protected area networks to support biodiversity conservation. WWF International
and Alliance on Religions and Conservation, Gland, Switzerland and Bath, UK.
Dunn, K. (2005). Interviewing. In Hay, I. (Eds.). Qualitative Research Methods in Human
Geography. Oxford University Press.
Faugier, J., & Sargeant, M. (1996). Sampling hard to reach populations. Journal of
Advanced Nursing, 26, 790–797.
Folke, C., Hahn, T., Olsson, P., & Norberg, J. (2005). Adaptive governance of social-
ecological systems. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour., 30, 441-473.
Gavin, M. C., McCarter, J., Mead, A., Berkes, F., Stepp, J. R., Peterson, D., & Tang, R.
(2015). Defining biocultural approaches to conservation. Trends in Ecology &
Evolution, 30(3), 140-145.
Gerring, J. (2004).What is a case study and what is it good for? American Political Science
Review, 98(2), 341–354.
Golafshani, N. (2003). Understanding reliability and validity in qualitative research. The
Qualitative Report, 8(4), 597–607.
Gomez-Pompa, A., & Kaus A. (1992). Taming the wilderness myth. BioScience, 42 (4),
271–279.
Graham, J., Amos B., & Plumptre, T. (2003). Governance principles for protected areas in
the 21st century: a discussion paper. Institute on Governance in collaboration with
Parks Canada and Canadian International Development Agency, Ottawa.
Groenewald, T. (2004). A phenomenological research design illustrated. International
Journal of Qualitative Methods, 3(1), 2-26.
135
Gunderson L. & Holling CS. (Eds). (2002). Panarchy: Understanding Transformations in
Human and Natural Systems. Washington, DC: Island
Heckenberger, M., Russell, J., Toney, J., & Schmidt, M. (2007). The legacy of cultural
landscapes in the Brazilian Amazon: implications for biodiversity. Philosophical
Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 362(1478), 197-208.
Hess, C. (2008). Mapping the new commons. Available at SSRN 1356835.
Hepburn, C. (2007) Carbon trading: a review of the Kyoto Mechanisms. Annual Review of
Environment and Resources, 32, 375–393.
Hilary P. & Rofe, M. (2010). Qualitative research and its place in human geography. In
Hay, I. (Eds.) (2010). Qualitative Research Methods in Human Geography.
Oxford University Press.
Hobbs, R. & Harris, J. (2001). Restoration ecology: repairing the Earth’s ecosystems in the
new millennium. Restoration Ecology, 9, 239–246.
Hoole, A., & Berkes, F. (2010). Breaking down fences: Recoupling social–ecological
systems for biodiversity conservation in Namibia. Geoforum, 41(2), 304-317.
Howlett M. (2003). Canadian environmental policy and the natural resources sector:
paradoxical aspects of transition to a post-staples political economy. In: Lee, E., &
Perl, A. (Eds.). (2003). The Integrity Gap: Canada's Environmental Policy and
Institutions. UBC Press.
Ilibezova, E., L. Ilibezova, and E. Selezneva. (2005). Research of Households and
Communities under the Project on Preservation of Ichtyofauna of the Lake of
Issyk-Kul Basin. Public Opinion Research Center El-Pikir, Bishkek.
Isacch, J. (2008). Implementing the biosphere reserve concept: the case of Parque Atlántico
Mar Chiquito biosphere reserve from Argentina. Biodiversity and
Conservation, 17(8), 1799-1804.
Johnson, B., & Christensen, L. (2008). Educational research: Quantitative, Qualitative,
and Mixed Approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Kjær, A.M. (2004) Governance. Polity Press, Malden, MA, USA.
Klerkx, J., & Imanackunov, B. (Eds.). (2002). Lake Issyk-Kul: Its Natural Environment.
Springer.
136
Kojekov, E. (2008). Report on Issyk-Kul biosphere reserve. International Journal of
Environment and Sustainable Development, 7(2), 191-215.
Konurbaev, A.O., L.A. Kustareva, M.N. Alpiev, D.T. Kabatev, & E.S. Konurbaev. (2005).
Conditions of Issyk Kul Lake Ichtiofauna, fishery and its management. Mimeo,
Bishkek.
Kothari, A. (1996). India’s protected areas: The journey to joint management. World
Conservation, 2(96), 8-9.
Kothari, A. (2006). Community conserved areas: towards ecological and livelihood
security. Parks, 16(1), 3-13.
Labuschagne, A. (2003). Qualitative research – airy fairy or fundamental. The Qualitative
Report, 8(1), 100-103.
Lee, E., & Perl, A. (Eds.). (2003). The Integrity Gap: Canada's Environmental Policy and
Institutions. UBC Press.
Love, P. (2003). Document Analysis. In Stage F. & Manning, K. Research in the College
Context: Approaches and Methods. New York, NY: Brunner-Routledge, pp. 83-
97.
Ludwig D, Mangel M, Haddad B. (2001). Ecology, conservation, and public policy. Annual
Review of Ecological Systems, 32, 481–517.
MAB. (2002). Biosphere Reserve Directory. Biosphere Reserve Information. Kyrgyzstan.
Issuk-Kul. URL: http://goo.gl/16DYQi. (Accessed on May 15, 2015).
MAB. (2013). Item 10 of the Provisional Agenda: Periodic Review of Biosphere Reserves
and Follow-Up of Recommendations. International Coordinating Council of the
Man and the Biosphere (MAB) Programme, Twenty-fifth Session, SC-
13/CONF.225/8 Rev., Paris. Retrieved on May 15, 2015 from URL:
http://goo.gl/BEY7k7
Mack, N, Woodsong, C., Macqueen, K., Guest, G., & Namey, E. (2005). Qualitative
research methods: a data collectors field guide. Family Health International, 5,
13–27.
Maffi, L. (2001). On Biocultural Diversity: Linking Language, Knowledge, and the
Environment. Washington, DC: Smithson. Inst. Press.
Maffi, L., & Woodley, E. (2010). Biocultural Diversity Conservation: a Global
Sourcebook. Routledge.
137
Martin, G., Benavides, C., García, C., Fonseca, S., Mendoza, F., & Ortíz, M. (2011).
Indigenous and community conserved areas in Oaxaca, Mexico. Management of
Environmental Quality: An International Journal, 22(2), 250-266.
Mikusinski, G., Possingham, H., & Blicharska, M. (2013). Biodiversity priority areas and
religions - a global analysis of spatial overlap. Oryx, 48(01), 17-22.
Newing, H., & Wahl, L. (2004). Benefiting local populations? Communal reserves in Peru.
Cultural Survival Quarterly, 28(1), 38-41.
Ostrom, E., Burger, J., Field, C. B., Norgaard, R. B., and Policansky, D. (1999). Revisiting
the Commons: Local Lessons, Global Challenges. Science 284, 278–282.
Oviedo, G. (2006). Community Conserved Areas in South America. Parks, 16 (1), 49-55.
Oviedo, G. & Jeanrenaud, S. (2007). Protecting sacred natural sites of indigenous and
traditional peoples . In Mallarach, J. & Papayannis, T. (Eds). (2007). Protected
Areas and Spirituality, IUCN and Publicacions de l’Abadia de Montserrat, Gland,
Switzerland.
Pink, S. (2013). Doing visual ethnography. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Pinto, R. (2015). ‘Walking in the forest’: ‘Tracing traditional ecological knowledge in
field-level protected area management. Master of Science thesis, Central European
University, Budapest.
Pomeroy, R. S., & Berkes, F. (1997). Two to tango: the role of government in fisheries co-
management. Marine policy, 21(5), 465-480.
Posey, D. (1999). Cultural and Spiritual Values of Biodiversity. London: Intermediate
Technology Publications, United Nations Environmental Program.
Premauer J. & F. Berkes. (2012). Colombia: Makuira, the cosmological center of origin for
the Wayúu people. In: Dudley N. and S. Stolton. (2012). Protected landscapes and
wild biodiversity. Volume 3 in Values of Protected Landscapes and Seascapes
Series, Gland, Switzerland: UICN, pp. 53-61.
Premauer, J. (2013). Rights, Conservation, and Governance: Indigenous Peoples-National
Parks Collaboration in Makuira, Colombia (Doctoral dissertation, University of
Manitoba).
Pretty, J., Adams, B., Berkes, F., de Athayde, S. F., Dudley, N., Hunn, E., & Pilgrim, S.
(2009). The intersections of biological diversity and cultural diversity: Towards
integration. Conservation & Society, 7(2), 100 - 112.
138
Ramakrishnan P., Saxena K., Chandrashekara U. (Eds). (1998). Conserving the Sacred: for
Biodiversity Management. Enfield, NH: Science publishers.
Rands, M., Adams, W., Bennun, L., Butchart, S., Clements, A., Coomes, D. et al. (2010)
Biodiversity conservation: challenges beyond 2010. Science, 329, 1298–1303.
Robson J. & F. Berkes. (2010). Sacred Nature and Community Conserved Areas. In: Pretty,
J. & Pilgrim, S. (Eds). Nature and Culture: Rebuilding Lost Connections. London,
UK: Earthscan Books, pp. 197-216.
Rosales, J. (2006) Economic growth and biodiversity loss in an age of tradable permits.
Conservation Biology, 20, 1042–1050.
Rutte, C. (2011). The sacred commons: conflicts and solutions of resource management in
sacred natural sites. Biological Conservation, 144(10), 2387-2394.
Ryan, G. W., & Bernard, H. R. (2003). Techniques to identify themes. Field
Methods, 15(1), 85-109.
SAEPF. (2014). State Agency on Environment Protection and Forestry under the
Government of the Kyrgyz Republic. URL: http://goo.gl/ox1tl9 (Accessed on
May 15, 2015)
FAO. (2013). Fish species introductions in the Kyrgyz Republic. FAO Fisheries and
Aquaculture Technical Paper. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United
Nations, Rome. URL: http://goo.gl/4RFfJM (Accessed on May 15, 2015)
Samakov, A. & F. Berkes. Issyk Kul Lake, the planet’s third eye: Sacred sites in Issyk Kul
Biosphere Reserve. In: Asian Sacred Natural Sites: An Ancient Asian Philosophy
and Practice with Fundamental Significance to Protected Areas (B. Verschuuren,
editor) Routledge, London and New York (chapter in press).
Schaaf, T. & Lee, C. (2006). Conserving cultural and biological diversity: the role of sacred
natural sites and cultural landscapes. Proceedings of UNESCO-IUCN
International Conference, Tokyo, Japan, UNESCO, Paris.
Shabunin, G.& Shabunin, A. (2002). Climate and physical properties of water in Lake
Issyk-Kul. In Lake Issyk-Kul: Its Natural Environment. Klerkx J. & Imanackunov,
B. (Eds.). (2002). NATO Science Series, IV Earth and Environmental Sciences -
Vol. 13. Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 3-13.
Sheridan, M. (2009). The environmental and social history of African sacred groves: a
Tanzanian case study. African Studies Review, 52(1), 73-98.
139
Sodhi, N., Butler, R., Laurence, W. & Gisfcon, L. (2011). Conservation successes at micro-
, meso- and macroscales. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 26, 585–594.
Sofaer, S. (2002). Qualitative research methods. International Journal for Quality in Health
Care, Oxford Journals, 14(4), 329–336.
Stake, R. (1995). The art of case study research. London: Sage.
Stake, R. (2005). Qualitative studies. In Denzin, N. & Lincoln, Y. (2005). London: Sage.
Stake, R. (2006). Multiple Case Study Analysis. Guilford Press.
Tacea, A. (2011). Ata-Jolu. Aigine Cultural Research Center. URL: http://goo.gl/P0gk6r
(Accessed on May 15, 2015)
Tengö, M., Johansson, K., Rakotondrasoa, F., Lundberg, J., Andriamaherilala, J.,
Rakotoarisoa, J., Elmqvist, T. (2007). Taboos and forest governance: informal
protection of hot spot dry forest in Southern Madagascar. Ambio, 36 (8), 683-691.
Ter-Ghazaryan, D., & Heinen, J. (2006). Commentary: reserve management during
transition: the case of Issyk-Kul Biosphere and Nature Reserves,
Kyrgyzstan. Environmental Practice, 8(01), 11-23.
TILCEPA. (2008). Community Conserved Areas: a Review of Status & Needs after
Durban 2003 and CBD COP 7 2004. Preliminary Synthesis. Retrieved on
September 16, 2013 from http://goo.gl/6eWQGx.
Tilman, D. (2000). Causes, consequences and ethics of biodiversity. Nature, 405, 208–211.
UNDP. (2011). The Glaciers of Central Asia: A Disappearing Resource. Central Asia
Glaciers’ Study - Current state of knowledge and recommendations. URL:
http://goo.gl/UWoF1j (Accessed on May 15, 2015)
UNESCO. (1996). Biosphere reserves: the Seville strategy and the statutory framework of
the world network. UNESCO, Paris.
UNESCO. (2011). Biosphere Reserves – learning sites for sustainable development. URL:
http://goo.gl/wz6g2W (Accessed on May 15, 2015)
UNESCO. (2012). Ecological Sciences for Sustainable Development. Issyk Kul. URL:
http://goo.gl/D7hyng. (Accessed on May 15, 2015)
Usubalieva-Grishchuk, Ch. (2012). In Search of Sacredness: Pilgrimage Practices in
Kyrgyzstan. Langscape. Sacred Natural Sites: Sources of Biocultural Diversity.
Vol. 2, Issue 11, 68-71.
140
Van Houtan, K. (2006) Conservation as virtue: a scientific and social process for
conservation ethics. Conservation Biology, 20, 1367–1372.
Van Houtan, K. (2010) Conservation, biology, and religion. In Sodhi N. & Ehrlich, P.
(Eds.) Conservation Biology For All. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.
Verschuuren, B., Wild, R., McNeely J., & Oviedo G. (Eds.). (2010). Sacred Natural Sites:
Conserving Nature and Culture. Routledge.
Wang, C., & Redwood-Jones, Y. (2001). Photovoice ethics: Perspectives from Flint
photovoice. Health Education & Behavior, 28(5), 560-572.
Wild, R. & McLeod, C. (Eds). (2008). Sacred Natural Sites: Guidelines for Protected Area
Managers. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland.
WNBR (2015). World Network of Biosphere Reserves (WNBR). UNESCO. URL:
http://goo.gl/9Epv4x (Accessed on May 15, 2014).
Woods, P. (2006). Qualitative research. Faculty of education, University of Plymouth.
Wunderlich J., Domashov I., Kirilenko A., & Shukurov E. (2014). Potential for
strengthening the coverage of the core zone of Biosphere Reserve Issyk-Kul.
Michael Succow Foundation for the Protection of Nature. Bishkek / Greifswald.
Yin, R. (2009). Case Study Research, Design and Methods. SAGE Publications.
Ysyk-Köl Biosphere Reserve 2nd
Periodic Review to the UNESCO ICC MAB. (2013).
Available upon request from Kyrgyzstan’s National UNESCO Commission.
Ysyk-Köl Biosphere Reserve Statute. (2000). The Government of the Kyrgyz Republic.
Signed on January 24, 2000. N 40.
APPENDIX 1: Kyrgyzstan’s legislative framework pertaining to biocultural conservation
Table A: A list of international treaties and conventions ratified by Kyrgyzstan
№ Conventions / treaties (date a treaty entered into force) Date ratified in
Kyrgyzstan
1. Convention concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and
Natural Heritage (December 17, 1975)
08.06.1995
2. Convention on Biological Diversity (Rio, December 19, 1993). 26.07.1996
Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety to the Convention on
Biological Diversity (Montreal, September, 11 2003)
6.08.2005
Nagoya Protocol on Access to Genetic Resources and the
Fair and Equitable Sharing of Benefits Arising from their
Utilization to the Convention on Biological Diversity
(Nagoya, October 12, 2012)
05. 02. 2015
3. Convention of the European and Mediterranean organization on
plants protection
12.04.1999
4. The United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification in Those
Countries Experiencing Serious Drought and/or Desertification,
Particularly in Africa, UNCCD (Paris, December, 1996)
21.07.1999
5. UN Convention on protection new varieties of plants (1968, 1972,
1991)
14.01.2000
6. The UNECE Convention on Access to Information, Public
Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in
Environmental Matters (the Aarhus Convention) Aarhus, June 25,
1998
January 12, 2001
7. Convention on Wetlands of International Importance, especially as
Waterfowl Habitat (Ramsar, December, 21 1975)
10.04.2002
8. Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild
Fauna and Flora (CITES), Washington, July 1 1975
30.11.2006
9. Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild
Animals (CMS), Bonn 1983
24-10-2013
(Jan 1, 2014)
10. Convention on the Protection and Use of Transboundary and
International Lakes, aka Water Convention, Helsinki, October 6,
1996
Not signed
Agreements
11. Agreement between the CIS countries on cooperation in field of
plant quarantine, Moscow
12. 11.1992
13. Agreement on Cooperation in field of environmental protection
the Almaty’s Declaration of the Presidents of Central Asia
1997-2002
1997
the Tashkent’s Declaration of the Special UN Programme
for Central Asia
1998
the Dushanbe’s Declaration 2002
14. Agreement between the Government of the Kyrgyz Republic, the
Government of the Republic of Uzbekistan and the Government of
the Republic of Kazakhstan on Cooperation in field of conservation
of biodiversity of the Western Tien-Shan, Bishkek
17.03.1998
15. Agreement between the Government of the Republic of Kazakhstan,
the Government of the Kyrgyz Republic, the Government of the
Republic of Tajikistan and the Government of the Republic of
Uzbekistan on Cooperation in field of plant quarantine, Astana
08.06.2000
16. Agreement between the Ministry of Agriculture, Water Resources
and Processing Industry of the Kyrgyz Republic and the Ministry of
Agricultural Policy of Ukraine on Cooperation in field of testing
and protection of the plant sorts, Kiev
28. 03. 2003
Table B. Kyrgyzstan’s national laws pertaining to biocultural conservation
National Laws Enacted in Kyrgyzstan Date (dd/mm/yyyy) and
number
Act ‘On livestock-breeding’ 18.12.1992, № 1124-XII
Act ‘On water’ 14.01.1994 № 1422-XII
Act ‘On protected areas’ 28.05.1994 № 1561-XII
Subsoil Law 02.07.1997 № 42
Act ‘On seeds’ 19. 06. 1997 № 38
Act ‘On fisheries’ 25.06.1997 № 39
Act ‘On plant quarantine’ 02.06.1998 № 26
Act ‘On Legal protection of selection achievements’ 13.06.1998 № 79
Act ‘On potable water’ 25.03.1999 № 33
Act ‘On use of chemicals and protection of plants’ 25.01.1999 № 12
Act ‘On Biosphere Territories (Reserves) in Kyrgyzstan’ 09.06.1999 № 48
Act ‘On protection of atmosphere’ 12.06.1999 № 51
Act ‘On environmental protection’ 16.06.1999 № 53
Act ‘On ecological (environmental) assessment’ 16.06.1999 № 54
Act ‘On wildlife’ 17.06.1999 № 59
Act ‘On protection and use of historical and cultural
heritage’
29. 06.1999 № 91
Act ‘On protection and usage of flora’ 20.06.2001 № 53
Act ‘On mountainous areas of Kyrgyzstan’ 01.11.2002 № 151
Act ‘On sustainable development of Ysyk-Köl ecological
and economic system’
13.08.2004 № 115
Act ‘On prohibition of logging, purchase and sale, usage,
export and import of especially valuable (walnut and
juniper) forests’
12.02.2007 № 15
Act ‘On traditional knowledge protection’ 31.07.2007 № 116
Act ‘On prohibition of catch, transportation, purchase
and sale of especially valuable as well as endemic
species of fish in Ysyk-Köl and Song-Kol Lakes’
04.08.2008 № 191
Act ‘On tariffs and fares for use of flora and fauna’ 11.08.2008 № 200
Act ‘On pastures’ 26.01.2009 № 30
Act ‘On general technical regulations for ensuring
ecological safety in Kyrgyzstan’
08.05.2009 № 151
Other environmental Laws with secondary importance for biocultural diversity
Act ‘On industrial wastes and consumption residue’ 13.11.2001 № 89
Act ‘On tariffs and fares for environmental pollution’ 10.03.2002 № 32
Act ‘On tailings facilities and spoil banks’ 26.06.2001 № 57
Act ‘On population’s radiation safety’ 17.06.1999 № 58
Act ‘On energy savings’ 07.07.1998 № 88
Act ‘On renewable source of energy’ 31.12.2008 № 283
Act ‘On protection of ozone layer’ 18.12.2006 № 206
Act ‘On government regulation of greenhouse gas emissions’ от 25.05.2007 № 71
Act ‘On general technical regulation regarding safe exploitation and recycling of
machinery and equipment’ 29.12.2008 № 280
Act ‘On industrial safety of hazardous industrial facilities’ 19.11.2001 № 93
Table C. Kyrgyzstan’s Legal Codes pertaining to conservation
Name of a
Code
Date and # Short description
Land Code
(code of land
laws)
02.06.1999 № 45 Defines main principles of land use and ownership in
Kyrgyzstan. Regulates acquisition, sale, regimes of
use, tariffs and fares, and activities for ensuring
protection and restoration of lands
Forestry Code 08.07.1999 № 66 Defines legal norms for sustainable use, protection
and reproduction of forests as well as improvement
of forests’ ecological and resource potential
Water Code 12.01.2005 № 8 Defines the main principles of water use, protection
of water resources (including ground water), duties
and mandate of governmental institutions in
managing water resources. Regulates rules of
irrigation and tariffs and fares for water use.
Criminal Code 01.10.1997 № 68 Chapter 26 (265-279) defines sanctions for
ecological crimes
Code of
administrative
violations
04.08.1998 №
114
Chapters 11-19 (articles 97-210) define
administrative sanctions and fines related to
violations in use of resources, protection of cultural
and biological heritage and conservation of
environment and wildlife.
APPENDIX 2. Resolution of sacred site guardians accepted at the National Meeting of Sacred
Site Guardians, October 27, 2014, Bishkek
Recognizing Kyrgyzstan’s ethnic, biological, linguistic, religious, cultural and political
diversity and supporting every citizen’s inalienable right for freedom of language, culture,
religion and political beliefs, We, the guardians of sacred sites in Kyrgyzstan, strongly
emphasize the importance of existing diversity and need for its conservation.
We believe that the network of sacred sites, which forms the Sacred Geography of
Kyrgyzstan, is a vivid example of and a mechanism for such diversity. Sacred Geography is
not limited by the boundaries of individual states and serves a uniting spiritual principle via
recognition of diversity.
We testify that sacred sites perform important social functions on the level of individuals,
families, communities and countries. Those social functions include but not limited to: a)
improvement of physical and psychological well-being of individuals, b) support of family
institution and c) contribution to community well-being. Traditional knowledge of many
centuries and cultures is accumulated and the time-tested wisdom is passed down from
generation to generation on sacred sites. Sacred sites also become the non-violence zones
during social conflicts.
We would like to draw everybody’s attention to the potential of sacred sites for
understanding and promoting diversity in nature, history, epic heritage, culture and religion.
We believe that models of behavior on sacred sites can help to harmonize nature and
culture, rational and spiritual aspects of human beings and to develop sustainable ways of
interacting with bioculturally diverse environemnt.
Кыргызстандын ыйык жерлеринин кароолчулары жана сактоочулары
Жыйынынын Угузары
27 октябрь 2014 ж.
Бишкек
Биз, Кыргызстандагы ыйык жерлердин сактоочулары жана кароолчулары,
Кыргызстанда орун алган табигый, улуттук, тилдик, диний, маданий жана саясый көп
түрдүүлүктү көңүлүбүзгө алуу менен, өлкөбүздүн ар бир жараны тил, маданият, дин
тандоо эркиндигине жана ар кандай саясый көз-караштарга ээ болуусун колдоп, бул
көп түрдүүлүктү сактоо маанилүү жана баалуу экендигин белгилеп кетебиз.
Биз, Кыргызстандын ыйык жерлеринен түзүлгөн касиеттүү жаратылышын көп
түрдүүлүк сакталышынын бирден-бир даана көрүнүшү жана аны ар тараптуу
колдоонун таасирдүү усулу экендигин ырастайбыз. Ыйык табият мамлекеттик чек
аралар менен чектелбейт, ал көп түрдүүлүктү таануу аркылуу руханий өсүүгө кызмат
кылат.
Ыйык жерлер адамдык, үй-бүлөлүк, коомдук жана өлкөлүк деңгелдерде салмактуу
милдеттерди аткарып жаткандыгын ырастайбыз. Алардын коомдук милдеттери
төмөнкү кызматтар кирет: адамдын руханий жана денелик саламаттыгын оңдоо жана
чыңдоо; үй-бүлөөнү сактоо жана бекемдөө; жамааттын бакубаттыгын жогорулатуу.
Албетте, милдеттер булар менен чектелбейт. Ыйык жерлердин айланасында
нечендеген доордогу жана ар түрдүү маданияттагы билимдер калыптанган. Ыйык
жерлерде кылымдардан кылымга, муундан муунга даанышмандыктын түздөн-түз
берилиши жүрөт. Чыр чатактар учурунда ыйык жерлер зордук-зомбулуксуз жерлерге
айланары далилденди.
Биз ыйык жерлерлердин, тарыхтын, маданияттардын, диндердин, табигый
байлыктардын көп түрдүүлүктөрүн изилдөөдө алардын кубаттуу даремети
бардыгына ынандык жана ага зор көңүл бурууга чакырабыз. Биз ыйык жерлердеги
адамдардын жүрүм-туруму жаратылыш менен маданиятты, акыл менен сезимдерди
шайкештикке келтире турганына күбө болуп, азыркы коомдогу сый жана сабырдуу
мамилелердин түзүлүшүнө, көп түрдүүлүктө жашоо жолдорун иштеп чыгууга өбөлгө
болоруна ишенебиз.
Резолюция Съезда смотрителей и хранителей сакральных мест Кыргызстана
27 октября 2014
г. Бишкек
Мы, смотрители и хранители сакральных мест Кыргызстана, принимая во внимание
этническое, биологическое, языковое, религиозное, культурное, политическое
разнообразие, существующее в Кыргызстане, поддерживая право каждого
гражданина страны на свободный выбор языка, культуры, религии, политических
убеждений, хотим подчеркнуть ценность существующего разнообразия и важность
его сохранения.
Мы утверждаем, что сеть святых и священных мест, образующая сакральную
географию Кыргызстана, является одним из наглядных проявлений разнообразия, а
так же действенным механизмом сохранения разнообразия. Сакральная география не
ограничивается государственными границами и служит принципам духовного
единения через признание разнообразия.
Мы подтверждаем, что святые и священные места выполняют важные социальные
функции на уровне человека, семьи, сообществ и стран. Социальные функции
включают в себя, но не ограничиваются поддержанием и укреплением психического
и физического здоровья человека, сохранением и укреплением института семьи,
поддержанием благополучия общин. Вокруг святых мест аккумулируются знания
разных эпох и культур, на святых местах происходит передача из поколения в
поколение мудрости, проверенной веками. Сакральные места часто становятся
зонами ненасилия в периоды конфликтов.
Мы призываем обратить внимание на мощный потенциал святых мест для изучения
многообразия природы, истории, эпического наследия, культуры, религий. Мы
верим, что модели поведения на сакральных местах могут способствовать
гармонизации природного и культурного, рационального и духовного начал,
формированию терпимых и уважительных отношений в современном обществе,
выработке моделей взаимодействия с разнообразием.
APPENDIX 3 Informed Consent Form
Research Project Title: Governance, Stewardship and Biocultural Conservation in Ysyk-
Köl Biosphere Reserve
Researcher: Aibek Samakov
The text of the consent form will be in both Kyrgyz and Russian languages
I am a graduate student at the Natural Resources Institute, University of Manitoba,
(Canada) and I am conducting a field research for my Master’s Thesis. My research focuses
on conservation practices in the Ysyk-Köl Biosphere Reserve. Ysyk-Köl Biosphere
Reserve comprises some of the oldest protected areas in Kyrgyzstan as well as sacred
natural sites, which are considered to be traditional protected areas. The purpose of the
research is to understand how sacred sites fit into formal conservation strategies in Ysyk-
Köl Biosphere Reserve. This research is being sponsored by the Community Conservation
Research Network (Halifax, Canada) and Dr. Fikret Berkes, Canada Research Chair in
Community-Based Resource Management, Natural Resources Institute, University of
Manitoba, Canada. The study has already been approved by the Joint-Faculty Research
Ethics Board at the University of Manitoba (Canada).
This consent letter, a copy of which will be left with you for your records and reference, is
part of the process of informed consent. It should give you the basic idea of what the
research is about and what your participation will involve. If you would like know more
details about something mentioned here, or information not included here, please feel free
to ask for clarifications. Please take the time to read this carefully and to understand this
information.
In the course of the research you will be asked a series of questions that will help me
understand the issues related to conservation strategies in the Ysyk-Köl Biosphere Reserve
such as existing governance structure, approaches to conservation, and traditional models
of conservation. You will be requested to participate in an interview session that will last
for 45 – 60 minutes. If more time is required, a subsequent meeting can be arranged at your
convenience. These interviews may be conducted at your place of work, home, or at
another location of your preference. After the interview, if the need arises, you may be
contacted for further clarifications.
Natural Resource Institute
70 Dysart Rd,
Winnipeg, Manitoba
Canada R3T 2N2
General Office (204) 474-7170
Fax: (204) 261-0038
http://www.umanitoba.ca/academic/institutes/natural_resources
The interview will be recorded on a digital recorder provided that you do not have any
objections. Your name and contact information will be kept in secure location and will be
destroyed upon completion of the study. If you wish to receive an integrated output of the
study, you can indicate your email and you will receive an email when the preliminary
results are ready. Your feedback on integrated results will be highly appreciated and will be
taken into account while preparing the final results. The data provided by you will be used
to complete a progress reports, my Master’s thesis, and will potentially be published in an
academic journal. You will not be identified by name in any such publications unless you
explicitly waive your right for confidentiality and anonymity.
You are free to decline to participate in this research, withdraw from the study at any time,
and/or choose not to answer any questions you may not be comfortable with. If you do
decline to participate in the study or answer any questions, you will not face any negative
consequences. If I have not explained the study clearly, please feel free to ask for
clarifications or additional information at any time throughout your participation.
My cell phone number is (996)-771-555-125 and my email is [email protected]
If you have any complaints or further questions about the nature of this research, your
concerns may be directed to:
The Human Ethics Secretariat at the University of Manitoba
Phone: +1 204- 474-7122
E-mail: [email protected]
or to my advisor:
Dr. Fikret Berkes
Phone: +1 204-474-6731,
E-mail: [email protected]
Please be advised that the staff at these offices speak only English (and maybe French).
Do you understand and agree to the terms described here?